W^^^^^A^^K^^W^^^^^^^^WV^.v.v.•■,>••.'v.'v,V' *."•'» .."i' -.^Mi1;'VoViW^niini' '■ ■^yRir.ruir\Änj< r^ ArtrwvurM-»-.- ■ d ww pu * urn "y

<M

< I

Q <

ßffi-FILE COPy (?)

INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM

PHASE I - RECORDS SEARCH

AIR FORCE PLANT NO. 36,

OHIO

Prepared For

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

AFESC/DEV

Tyndall AFB, Florida

and

HQ ASD/PMD

Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio

DTfC ELECTH APR0 5tg88rl

>5ifto^tion Unlimited ' I ■

July 1985

Prepared By

ENGINEERING-SCIENCE 57 Executive Park South, Suite 590

Atlanta, Georgia 30329

i&Kia ttftt

^»u

?« f 4 ' T3S

\ >

[

MW.WfXI^WMWffl^^ wvwusrowwnnnonwTOijan;

NOTICE

This report has been prepared for the United States Air Force by Engineering-Science for the purpose of aiding in the Air Force installation Restoration Program. It is not an endorsement of any product. The views expressed herein are those of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the publishing agency, the United States Air Force, nor the Department of Defense.

Copies of the report may be purchased from:

National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161

Federal Government agencies and their contractors registered with Defense Technical Information Center should direct requests for copies of this report to:

Defense Technical Cameron Station Alexandria, Virginia 22314

nformation Center

\-1

Ikmrnymy^^ ■ ^ :%.> ~.■ 3r .■;. ; ■ ^

wWWWWruv-jvivvvwvvLnruwvwvviniyTrviiJTVWUTUTV»UTV^TOnwxjnontFTunun - •.. • ^ •-' • > . . ^ ,. ^ , ... , ,

Unclassified SeCUKlTV CLASSIFICATION Of THIS FAGB

K

dLMt JM REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1«. REPORT SECUBITV CLASSIFICATION

Unclassified 2s. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY

N/A 3b. OECLASSIFICATION/OOWNGRAOING SCHEDULE

N/A 4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

N/A 6*. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

Engineering Science

Sb. OFFICE SYMBOL (If appUeablt)

N/A

6c AOORESS iCitt. Statt ana ZIP Coda)

37 Executive Park South, Suite 590 Atlanta GA 30329

B«. NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING ORGANIZATION

USAF ASD/PMD

Bb. OFFICE SYMBOL (tf appUcabk)

ASD/PMDA

ss. AOOrfSsä -'.'rfr. '<*'* ana ZIP Coat,'

i Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433-6503

11. TITLE l.'r.cluiii Stcunty CUutifieationt

IRP Phase I-Records Search. AF Plant 36

lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS

N/A 3. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

Unlimited S. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

36-IRP-001 7«. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION

USAF AFESC/DEV

7b. AOORESS (City. Statt and ZIP Codti

Tyndall AFB FL 32403

9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

F08637-83-G0005

10 SOURCE OF FENCING «OS.

PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

N/A

PROJECT NO.

N/A

TASK NO.

N/A

WORK UNIT NO.

N/A

12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S) Engineering Science

13«. TYPE OF REPORT

Final 13b. TIME COVERED

FROM TO

14. DATE OF REPORT (Yr., Mo.. Day) July-1985

!6. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION I 5. PAGE COUNT ßO >^-l.

excluding Appendix

N/A 17. COSATI COOES

FIELO GROUP SUB. GR.

IB. SUBJECT TERMS (Cantinut on rtutna if ntetaary and idtttify by block numj

IRP^Installation Restoration Program (IRP)/AF Plant 3i Hazardous Waste, AF Plant 36

19. ABSTRACT fConlinuc on nutnt if ntetuary and identify By block numbtr,

nhis report provides the Installation Restoration ProgranT^TRP) Phase j^-Records for Air Force Plant 36, Evendale, Ohio. This is a report of a study conducted to identify past potentially hazardous material disposal sites. Interviews>a'ml document searchs were conducted to determine sites that were potentially contarai

Search

nated.

/-^ V-^A y ^

30. OlSTRiauTiON,AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT ........

L'NCLASSIPIEO/UNUMITEO Kl SAME AS RPT. G OTIC USERS G

32a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL

Mr Carl Stoltz

21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

Unclassified

Z

22b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include A rta Coda

(513) 255-3076 22e. OFFICE SYMBOL

ASD/PMDA

DO FORM W3, 83 APR EDITION OF 1 JAN 73 IS OBSOLETE. Unclassified SECURITY CLASSlFICATiON OF THIS PAGE

WWWwWWWwWW^^WWW^^^VWWWIWWWWWWK^rji'v-^r^rwAlMJUlJJ 'JWfUI".*',5,pT' --f;.- TEA fwrunorruf r

TABLE OP CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

Page No.

iii

LIST OF TABLES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Background and Authority Purpose and Scope Methodology

SECTION 2 INSTALLATION DESCRIPTION Location, Size and Boundaries History Organization and Mission

SECTION 3 QIVIRONMENTAL SETTING Meteorology Geography

Topography * " Soils

Surface Water Resources Plant Drainage Area Drainage .. /•_ t:. Surface Water Quality :,, . Surface Water Use

Ground-Water Resources Hydrogeologie Units Ground-Water Hydrology Ground-Water Quality Ground-Water Use

Biotic Environment Summary of Environmental Setting

SECTION 4 FINDINGS Installation Hazardous Waste Activity Review

Industrial Operations (Shops) Fire Protection Training Fuels Management Spills and Leaks Waste Storage Areas Raw Materials Storage Areas Pesticide Utilization

Description of Past Treatment and Disposal Methods Sanitary Sewer System Oil-Water Separators

iv

-1-

1-1

1-1 1-2 1-5

2-1 2-1 2-1 2-6

3-1 3-1 3-3 3-3 3-3 3-7 3-7 3-10 3-10 3-12 3-12 3-12 3-15 3-20 3-20 3-26 3-26

\S-L

ioaowwfflwwwww^^

HWWWWffWW M na jru mriry ' v TC IfTOOTB WVJWVLV, Wn tlf.»¥a*n«nönriniumijTivnnjiruiru^>mn'»n "k/T I»J^IWI».I-

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Evaluation of Past Disposal Activities and Facilities Sites Eliminated from Further Evaluation Sites Evaluated Using HARM

SECTION 5 CONCLUSIONS Underground Fuel Leak Northwest of Building B Fuel Spill at South Fuel Farm

SECTION 6 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended Phase II Monitoring » '

General Site-Specific Recommendations

APPENDIX A BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

APPENDIX B LIST OF INTERVIEWEES AND OUTSIDE AGENCY CONTACTS

APPENDIX C MASTER LIST OF SHOPS

APPENDIX D PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX E USAF INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM • HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING METHODOLOGY

APPENDIX F SITE HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING FORMS

APPENDIX G GLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS

APPENDIX H REFERENCES

APPENDIX I INDEX OF REFERENCES TO POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SITES AT AIR FORCE PLANT 36

4-14

4-14 4-14

5-1 5-1 5-1

6-1 6-1 6-1 6-3

xi

VWWM^^

pHPWBWPlfiiHiraBiÄWWfiOTrocnMö^ , AJKfUi r*M r* ■-,*. r^ i w- / imwA.w%*wu.v-k.i wr ■

LIST OF FIGURES

No. Title Page No.

1 GE Evendale Plant . -2-

2 Sites of Potential Contamination -5-

1.1 US Air Force Installation Restoration Program 1-3

1.2 Phase I Installation Restoration Program Records Search Flow Chart 1-7

2.1 Regional Location Map 2-2

2.2 Area Map 2-3

2.3 GE Evendale Plant 2-4

2.4 Installation Site Plan 2-5

3.1 Regional Physiographic Features 3-4

3.2 Soils 3-5

3.3 Surface Drainage Map 3-8

3.4 Area Surface Drainage Map -' 3-9

3.5 Surface Water Quality Sampling Locations 3-11

3.6 Geologic Map 3-14

3.7 GE Well Log No. 5 3-17

3.8 Location of Hydrogeologie Cross Section 3-18

3.9 Hydrogeologie Cross Section A-A' 3-19

3.10 Water Well Location Map 3-21

4.1 Fire Protection Training Area 4-6

4.2 Underground Tank Locations 4-10

4.3 Fuel Spill Locations 4-11

4.4 Oil-Water Separator Locations 4-15

6.1 Sites of Potential Contamination 6-4

iii

«^fl^flhfl^^

fJnWCTWWniKWTWTCTKFTünCKTOnOnWXJTOTOnUlTIJT)^^ ».- KnmnMnjLnjLnm.iMji.

LIST OP TABLES

No. Title Page No.

1 Sites Evaluated Using the Hazard Assessment Rating -6- Methodology at Air Force Plant 36

2 Recommended Monitoring Program for Phase II -8- IRP At Air Force Plant 36

3.1 Climatic Data for USAF Plant 36 3-2

3.2 USAF Plant 36 Soils 3-6

3.3 Selected Surface Water Quality Data for 3-13 Air Force Plant 36

3.4 Hydrogeologie Units and Their Water-Bearing 3-16 Characteristics in the Vicinity of Plant 36

3.5 Water Well Data for USAF Plant 36 and Vicinity 3-22

4.1 Industrial Operations (Shops) Waste Management 4-3

4.2 Fuel Management System Above Ground Tank Inventory 4-8

4.3 List of Underground Tanks 4-9

4.4 Oil-Water Separators on Air Force Plant 36 Property 4-16

4.5 Summary of Flow Chart Logic for Areas of Initial 4-17 Health, Welfare and Environmental Concern at Air Force Plant 36

4.6 Summary of HARM Scores for Potential Contamination 4-19 Sites at Air Force Plant 36

5.1 Sites Evaluated Using the Hazard Assessment Rating 5-2 Methodology at Air Force Plant 36

6.1 Recommended Monitoring Program for Phase II IRP at 6-2 Air Force Plant 36

6.2 Recommended List of Analytical Parameters for 6-5 Phase II IRP at Air Force Plant 36

iv

VMM^>MIWMftM^^

wW^WP^^^VlWffWW^^WWWBfWWDRSDfWWWWTWWTXR^WWK.TK.^JW "K' '■■'v.-Tt FTTK» B '^ ■"■. ■r-. »-.-:«- rw rv«

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Department of Defense (DOD) has developed a program to identify

and evaluate past hazardous material disposal sites on DOD property, to

control the migration of hazardous contaminants, and to control hazards

to health or welfare that may result from these past disposal opera-

tions. This program is called the Installation Restoration Program

(IRF). The IRP has four phases consisting of Phase I, Initial Assess-

ment/Records Search; Phase II, Confirmation/Quantification; Phase III,

Technology Base Development; and Phase IV, Operations/Remedial Actions.

Engineering-Science (ES) was retained by the united States Air Force to

conduct the Phase I, Initial Assessment/Records Search for Air Force

Plant 36 under Contract No. F08637-83-G-0005.

INSTALLATION DESCRIPTION

Air Force Plant 36 is located in Evendale, Ohio, approximately 12

miles north of Cincinnati.- The plant site is contiguous to, and is

commonly considered to be a part of, the General Electric Company's

Evendale plant (see Figure 1). The area surrounding the plant is a

mixed industrial-residential area. The plant site is owned by the Air

Force and encompasses 66.39 acres. The Air Force Plant 36 plant site is

characterized by very limited grass and soil areas; almost the entire

plant site is covered by buildings or paved areas. The adjacent General

Electric Company Eyendale plant consists of approximately 334 acres,

most of which is also covered by buildings and paved areas.

Air Force Plant 36 begem during World War II as an aircraft engine

production plant. The plant's buildings were constructed during 1940

through 1944 on land which had been farm land. The plant was originally

known as the Wright Aeronautical Engine Plant. After World War II, some

of the original Air Force property was sold to Autolite, which in turn

later sold the facilities to General Electric Company. General Electric

also purchased additional facilities and land contiguous to the present

-1-

Q^^^>saxh)^ >smz*r£w*mmtt'mx

m WV^rWWWWJWWWWWfBKfUf VmiFIW U UW IF lOGW V" W WWr WWJW^TJVJW.'WruWTr'jv jm \.-v>nr IT» •.-» w-» LT« w «»r. *■ - •

FIGURE 1

USAF PLANT 36

GE EVENDALE PLANT

GE EVENDALE PLANT

AIR FORpE PLANT 36

NOT TO SCALE

— SOURCE: U3Ar PLANT'38 0OCUMENT3

-2- ENGiNESR ING - SCIENCE

IM^E^^

wwWWW!WJWJW^^WWWJWTWWWnw^OTCT^.'^.7,~'^ • »• v""•• ■ UUUUWJ lAWUirJ VM ^.: lrtJl«J«ri(Vvvnfirwirs(inr.T»wwian' .-i i w», w-, /«-., «- , iru irvj v^.> ■

Air Force Plant 36 to form the present General Electric Company Evendale

plant.

Air Force Plant 36 has been used to support and supplement the

activities of the adjacent G.E. Evendale plant. Various portions of the

plant facilities have served as aircraft engine test cells (Building B),

storage (Building C-East), machine shop (Building D), and advanced

engine research and test facilities (Buildings C-west and D).

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The environmental setting data reviewed for this investigation

identified the following points relevant to Air Force Plant 36.

1. "Rie mean annual precipitation is 40.59 Inches; the net precipi-

tation is +6.59 inches and the 1-year 24-hour rainfall event is

2.5 inches. These data indicate an abundance of rainfall in

excess of evaporation (a mean precipitation driving force)

which causes a potential for storms to create excessive runoff.

2. The top three feet of soil underlying the plant generally con-

sists of clay and clay loam with moderate permeabilities. A

majority of the plant is covered with buildings, asphalt or

concrete. Grass and open soil areas are very limited; there-

fore infiltration will likewise be limited and slow through the

clay.

3. A shallow water table aquifer exists approximately 3 to 10 feet

deep under most of the plant. This upper Mill Creek Valley

aquifer is not utilized as a ground-water source in the vicin-

ity of the plant.

4. A clay confining unit exists under the plant which separates

the upper and lower Mill Creek Valley aquifers. Ulis clay may

not be continuous beneath the plant.

5. A deeper confined aquifer exists approximately 50 feet deep

under the plant. This lower Mill Creek Valley aquifer is

utilized as a ground-water source in the vicinity of the plant.

-3-

^«ft^fr^^

tmm^viwv.üwwvuu™ J*™™™™" 7WTnnJW\JWÄnwi}WOwi»n«n mn HJ: K--I ^n «/^ >

6. Plant 36 discharges storm water runoff to Mill Creek approxi-

mately 1,000 feet east of the Plant. Mill Creek is a Water

Quality Limited stream due to numerous urban and industrial

discharges both north and south of Plant 36.

7. There are no federally-listed or state-listed endangered or

threatened species on Plant 36.

METHODOLOGY

During the course of this project, interviews were conducted with

installation personnel familiar with past waste disposal practices; file

searches were performed for past hazardous waste activities; interviews

were held with local, state and federal agencies; and field surveys were

conducted at suspected past hazardous waste activity sites. Two sites

(Figure 2) were initially identified as potentially containing hazardous

contaminants and having the potential for contaminant migration result-

ing from past activities. These sites have been assessed using a iiazard

Assessment Rating Methodology (HARM) which takes into account factors

such as site ciaracteristics, waste characteristics, potential for

contaminant migration and waste management practices. The details of

the rating procedure are presented in Appendix E and the results of the

assessment are given in Table 1. The HARM score is a resource manage-

ment tool which indicates the relative potential for adverse effects on

health or the environment at each site evaluated.

FINDINGS AND CONCLDSIONS

The following conclusions have been developed based on the results

of the project team field inspection, reviews of plant records and

files, interviews with base personnel, and evaluations using the HARM

system.

The area found to have sufficient potential to create environmental

contamination is as follows:

o Underground Fuel Leak northwest of Building B

^mmm^M

|reWWTOTO^WTOKTO^JXffr7T7TÄ7T7TXKiCTwn^OTW\?wL,vv*vinr^

FIGURE I

3

ENGINEEBING-SCIENCE

*M^^'M^^^^

IWWWWWW wvWi wwnriJT; •\lL'llLniL*KnwniLnKnMnMStmt~,mn*jM<^immmrT'

TABLE 1 SITES EVALUATED USING THE

HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING METHODOLOGY AT AIR FORCE PLANT 36

Rank Site Operation Period

Underground Fuel Leak Northwest of Building B

1972

Fuel Spill at South Fuel Farm 1980

HARM Score (1)

52

46

(1) This ranking was performed according to the Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology (HARM) described in Appendix E. Individual rating forms are in Appendix F.

Mmmmmmmmmämmmmmmmmmmmmm^MMM

^W^ff^^^^^W^^WF^^^^^^^^W^WWWWIWWTOWWWOWWW^W.'VPUPilRW.'W'" "^ "X^^Tonorwrannnwr" 4, •. •

The area judged to have minor potential to create environmental

contamination is as follows:

o Fuel Spill at South Fuel Farm

RECOMMENDATIONS

A program for proceeding with Phase II and other IRP activities at

Air Force Plant 36 is presented in Section 6. "Hie recommended actions

include soil borings, monitoring wells and a sampling and analysis

program to determine if contamination exists. This program may be

expanded to define the extent and type of contamination if the initial

step reveals contamination. The Phase II recommendations are summarized

in Table 2.

-7-

*MMmm%™^^

WUUWWWWPi'llUTJ^jnivKirtw^JWWWiwusiYVTVi^^ »u-.^.,.-

TABLE 2 RECOMMENDED MONITORING PROGRAM FOR PHASE II IRP

AT AIR FORCE PLANT 36

Site (Rating Score) Recommended Monitoring Program

Underground Fuel Leak Northwest of Building B (52)

One soil boring and subsequent moni- toring well for confirmation of contamination. If confirmed, three additional wells to define extent of contamination. Soil and ground-water analyses (see Table 6.2).

Fuel Leak in South Fuel Farm Area

One soil boring by hand auger tech- nique for confirmation of contamina- tion. If confirmed, three additional borings to define extent of contami- nation. Soil analyses (see Table 6.2).

Source: Engineering-Science

^=B=-

^s^^MMCv»^

f^jf^jrÄÄRir^

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND AND AUTHORITY

The united States Air Force, due to its primary mission of defense

of the united States, has long been engaged in a wide variety of opera-

tions dealing with toxic and hazardous materials. Federal, state, and

local governments have developed strict regulations to require that

disposers identify the locations and contents of past disposal sites and

take action to eliminate hazards in an environmentally responsible

manner. The primary Federal legislation governing disposal of hazardous

waste is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as

amended. Under Section 6003 of the Act, Federal agencies are directed

to assist the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and under Section

3012, state agencies are required to inventory past disposal sites, and

Federal agencies are required to make the information available to the

requesting agencies. To assure compliance with these hazardous waste

regulations, the Department of Defense (DOD) developed the Installation

Restoration Program (IRP). The current DOD IRP policy is contained in

Defense Environmental Quality Program Policy Memorandum (DEQPPM) 81-5,

dated 11 December 1981 and implemented by Air Force message dated 21

January 1982. DEQPPM 81-5 reissued and amplified all previous direc-

tives and memoranda on the Installation Restoration Program. DOD policy

is to identify and fully evaluate suspected problems associated with

past hazardous contamination, and to control hazards to health and

welfare that resulted from these past operations. The IRP is the basis

for response actions on Air Force installations under the provisions of

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, clarified by Executive Order 12316, CERCLA is the

primary legislation governing remedial action at past hazardous waste

disposal sites.

1-1

m*j ^iwgtMWwmMM'^*^*"*"- TjßrvrrjrrarKMxsxmK*-*****1 Jf TMf TV» nMT^MKMlUir

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The Installation Restoration Program Is a four-phased program

(Figure 1.1) designed to assure that Identification, confirmation/

quantification, and remedial actions eure performed In a timely and

cost-effective manner. Each phase is briefly described below:

o Phase I - Installation Assessment/Records Search - Phase I Is

designed to Identify and prioritize those past disposal sites

that may pose a hazard to public health or the environment as a

result of contaminant migration to surface or ground waters, or

have an adverse effect by its persistence in the environment.

In this phase it is determined whether a site requires further

action to confirm an environmental hazard or whether it may be

considered to present no hazard at this time. If a site

requires immediate remedial action, such as removal of aban-

doned drums, the action can proceed directly to Phase IV.

Phase I is a basic background document for the Phase 11 study.

o Phase II - Confirmation/Quantification - Phase II Is designed

to define and quantify, by preliminary and comprehensive

environmental and/or ecological survey, the presence or absence

of contamination, the extent of contamination, waste charac-

terization (when required by the regulatory agency), and to

identify sites or locations where remedial action is required

in Phase IV. Research requirements Identified during this

phase will be included in the Phase III effort of the program.

o Phase III - Technology Base Development - Phase III is design-

ed to develop a sound data base upon which to prepare a com-

prehensive remedial action plan. This phase Includes

implementation of research requirements and technology for

objective assessment of adverse effects. A Phase III require-

ment can be Identified at any time during the program.

o Phase IV - Operations/Remedial Actions - Phase IV includes the

preparation and Implementation of the remedial action plan.

Engineering-Science (ES) was retained by the United States Air

Force to conduct the Phase I Records Search at Air Force Plant No. 36

^-*-a-

^ww^^w«^^

JWfwrwuHW IWWBWW lunilrnlrm WWWWWW^^^^WT7"'5.^, --«■• --. --.-. - ^-^-rT-r^— -*"•-—-- -■^ T^TffW^ÜTÄ^ W"^ fVKUHUflUX

FIGURE 1.1

U.S. AIR FORCE INSTALLATION RESTORATION

PROGRAM

i PHASE I

RECORDS SEARCH

PHASE II

C0NRRMAT1ON QUANTIFICATION

PHASE IV

REMEDIAL ACTION

NO FURTHER ACTION

PHASE III

TECHNOLOGY BASE DEVELOPMENT

SOUHCS: AFE3C

1-3 ENGINEERING - SOEHCE

<™MDffl<^^

r&rajnuranina™* •KruKKnKnwww™ «n^vTJVi,

under Contract No. F08637-83-G-0005. Ulis report contains a summary and

an evaluation of the information collected during Phase I of the IRP and

recommended follow-on actions. The land area included as part of the

Air Force Plant 36 study is a 66.39 acre tract of land designated as Air

Force Plant No. 36. This property is contiguous to the General Electric

Company's Evendale, Ohio Plant.

The activities performed as a part of the Phase I study scope

included the following:

- Review of site records

- Interviews with personnel familiar with past generation and

disposal activities

- Survey of types and quantities of wastes generated

- Determination of current and past hazardous waste treatment,

storage, and disposal activities

- Description of the environmental setting at the plant

- Review of past disposal practices and methods

- Reconnaissance of field conditions

- Collection of pertinent information from federal, state and

local agencies

- Assessment of the potential for contaminant migration

- Development of recommendations for follow-on actions

ES performed the on-site portion of the records search during April

1984. The following team of professionals was involved:

E.H. Snider, P.E., Chemical Engineer and Project Manager, 10 years

of professional experience.

H.D. Herman, Jr., P.G., Hydrogeologist, 9 years of professional

experience.

More detailed information on these individuals is presented in Appendix

A.

^ö^^&^mö^^

Bni7rwnuTlUTTWT»fljtnjLn.»nvn»ri»riJui»riicn»yi»«i»«jw* - ,.-. ,

METHODOLOGY

The methodology utilized in the Air Force Plant 36 Records Search

began with a review of past and present industrial operations conducted

at the installation. Information was obtained from available records

such as shop files and real property files, as well as interviews with

18 plant employees from various operating areas. Those interviewed

included personnel associated with environmental engineering, fuels

management, roads and grounds maintenance, fire protection, real proper-

ty, industrial hygiene and safety. A listing of interviewee positions

with approximate years of service is presented in Appendix B.

Concurrent with the employee interviews, the applicable federal,

state and local agencies were contacted for pertinent study area related

environmental data. Hie agencies contacted are listed below and in

Appendix B.

o City of Reading Water Plant

o City of Wyoming Water Department

o Hamilton County Health Department

o Metropolitan Sewer District, Cincinnati, Ohio

o Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

o Ohio. Department of Natural Resources

o Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments

o Southwestern Ohio Water Company

o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

o U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division

o U.S. Soil Conservation Service

The next step in the activity review was to identify all sources of

hazardous waste generation and to determine the past management prac-

tices regarding the use, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous

materials from the various sources at the plant. Included in this part

of the activities review was the identification of all known past dis-

posal sites and other possible sources of contamination such as spill

areas.

1-5

ymm.mwMiKr, matt

A general ground tour of the identified sites was made by the ES

Project Team to gather site-specific information including: (1) general

observations of existing site conditions; (2) visual evidence of envi-

ronmental stress; (3) presence of nearby drainage ditches or surface

waters; and (4) visual inspection of these water bodies for any obvious

signs of contamination or leachate migration.

A decision was then made, based on all of the above information,

whether a potential hazard to health, welfare or the environment exists

at any of the identified sites using the Flow Chart shown in Figure 1.2.

If no potential existed, the site received no further action. For those

sites where a potential hazard was identified, a determination of the

need for IRP evaluation/action was made by considering site-specific

conditions. If no further IRP evaluation was determined necessary, then

the site was referred to the installation environmental program for

appropriate action. If a site warranted further investigation, it was

evaluated and rated using the Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology

(HARM). The HARM score is a resource management tool which indicates

the relative potential for adverse effects on health or the environment

at each site evaluated.

1-6

.^^^^^^^^^^ ^^X^^^^

FIGURE 1.2

PHASE I INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM

RECORDS SEARCH FLOW CHART

Complete List of Location/Sites

Evaluation of Past Ooerations Listed Sites

No Further Action No PotentiaJ Hazard to Healtn. Welfare

or Environment HiE! Refer to Installation

Environmental Program; for Action

No 1— N««d for Funtier IRP Evaluation/Action

Consolidate Soecifk: Site Data

Apply AF Hazard Rating Metftodoiogy

Numerical Site Rating with Conciusions; Racommenoations

USAF Tecrmical Review

Report Recommendations

Regulatory Agency Reoort

Review/Comments

No Fuitn«r Action Raquired

I

-Phase II Investigation J

Phase IV Remeaial Action

Source: AFESC

1-7 gNGINCEn INC - SCIENCS

k^WWWKMV^

SECTION 2

INSTALLATION DESCRIPTION

LOCATION, SIZE, AND BOUNDARIES

Air Force Plant 36 is located in Evendale, Ohio, approximately 12

miles north of Cincinnati (see Figures 2.1 and 2.2). The plant site is

contiguous to, and is commonly considered to be a part of, the General

Electric Company's Evendale plant. The area surrounding the plant (see

Appendix D) is a mixed industrial-residential area. The plant site is

owned by the Air Force and encompasses 66.39 acres. The facility site

plans for Air Force Plant 36 and the adjacent GE Evendale plant are

shown in Figure 2.3. The Air Force Plant 36 plant site (Figure 2.4) is

characterized by very limited grass and soil areas; almost the entire

plant site is covered by buildings or paved areas.* The adjacent General

Electric Company Evendale plant consists of approximately 334 acres,

most of which is also covered by buildings and paved areas.

HISTORY

Air Force Plant 36 began during World War II as an aircraft engine

production plant. The plant's buildings were constructed during 1940

through 1944 on land which had been farm land. The plant was originally

known as the Wright Aeronautical Engine Plant. After World War II, some

of the original Air Force property was sold to Autolite, which in turn

later sold the facilities to General Electric Company. General Electric

also purchased additional facilities and land contiguous to the present

Air Force Plant 36 to form the present General Electric Company Evendale

plant.

Air Force Plant 36 has been used to support and supplement the

activities of the adjacent G.E. Evendale plant. Various portions of the

plant facilities have served as aircraft engine test cells (Building B),

storage (Building C-East), machine shop (Building D), and nuclear engine

research and test facilities (Buildings C-West and D). At present, the

2-1

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmommMm

USAF PLANT 36

REGIONAL LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2.1

ENG! NEEHING - SCI ENGE

ammram^^

FIGURE 2.2

«G. CO ^

S2 < 2< ^LU ice <

ENGiNEERING-SClENCE

^v^MHffigX&ia^^

FIGURE 2.3

5NGlNeEHING-SClENCS 5

!SjIm^Ww^^^^^WWWKS^WWWWVL^A^«Wv^'k'V>-:5RvVi»j^)tTVT)t^

FIGURE 2.4

SNGlNeEBING-SCIENCE

ft08WQ0QM<MH^^

WKWiwwjvr.uimfwmimmuwiM (U-(tnunuiauaurKiro.iriMiui>u>ivar

facilities are used for aircraft engine test cells, storage, and machine

shop activities and the areas previously occupied by the nuclear engine

research and test facilities are undergoing a decontamination process.

ORGANIZATION AND MISSION

The host organizations at Air Force Flant 36 are the Aircraft

Engine Business Group (AEBG) of General Electric Company and Advanced

Energy Programs Development (AEPO) of General Electric Company. The

primary mission of Air Force Plant 36 is to support the activities of

the G.E. Evendale plant in the production and testing of aircraft

turbine engines. The Air Force Plant Representative Office (APPRO)

serves as the administrator for the Aeronautical Systems Division (ASD) contract with General Electric Company. ' '

-2-6-

mmm&m^mmmmmmmmmmmsm

WWWWffWW^^TOW^W^^WW« r-ji.-j- -*_'-ji M"»' v v rjv v wvv v rwriMniinonm

SECTION 3

QJVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The environmental setting at Air Force Plant 36 is described in

this section. An understanding of the geology and hydrology is needed

to aid in identifying the hydrologic conditions which could contribute

to the migration of contaminants which may have been introduced into the

environment at the plant site and potential receptors that might be

impacted as a result of contaminant migration.

METEOROLOGY

The climate of the Air Force Plant 36 area is characterized by

humid and warm summers and moderately cold winters. The climate is

continental in nature with precipitation generally occurring in equal

amounts throughout the year. Temperature, precipitation and snowfall

data provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) are presented in Table 3.1. The data indicate that the mean

annual precipitation for the 35-year period of record was 40.59 Inches.

The estimated lake evaporation for the area is 34 inches (NOAA, 1977).

Two climatic features of interest in the movement of potential

contaminants eure the net precipitation (precipitation minus evaporation)

and the one-year 24-hour rainfall event. The net precipitation is an

indicator of the potential for leachate generation. "Bie one-year 24-

hour rainfall event is an indicator of the potential for storms to cause

excessive runoff and erosion. Ihe calculated net precipitation for the

Plant 36 area is plus 6.59 inches indicating an abundance of rainfall.

The one-year 24-hour rainfall event for this area is estimated to be 2.5

inches (NOAA, 1963). Excessive runoff may be generated as a result of a

one-year 24-hour rainfall event.

IJVlWWW^UWWV'MIWWMWWV^iwx.'v^^wu.-, /■rjW-M MTu WTJW-l. «-VJITAJ WT.J.

I ^3

?i

3 o

u

>

I

0<

«

«

« e I

I

<ä

CD

IM

O o

o o

o

o

■

01

I o 5

I* I- I

s

JzZ.

Rffi»«»ftQ^^

^^^"^^wWWWWroWfWgwgBBgffiyggwwawggwwww^if^^^ ^.,-, v. u. u.

GEOGRAPHY

Plant 36 is located in the Till Plains Section of the Central

Lowland province (Figure 3.1). The Till Plains Section is characterized

by a broad plateau which has been cut by several large valleys through

which the aajor streams of the area flow. Plant 36, located in the Mill

Creek Valley, is bordered on the north by the General Electric Evendale

Plant, on the west by Interstate Highway 75, on the south by Shepherd

Lane and on the east by the Conrail railroad tracks.

Topography

The topography of the Plant 36 area is a result of glaciation from

the north and deposition and erosion of sediments via the ancestral

Licking River from the south. The Illinoian stage of glaciation

resulted in the deposition of glacial drift (till) in the entire area

(Klaer and Thompson, 1948). The ancestral Licking River flowing north-

ward from Kentucky deposited new sand and gravel and likewise cut new

channels in the present day Mill Creek Valley. The Wisconsin stage of

glaciation also resulted in the deposition of glacial drift (till) in

the areas of Butler County approximately five miles north of Plant 36

and along Mill Creek in the area of Plant 36. Prior to glaciation and

during the interglacial period the stream valleys were eroded. Today

Mill Creek Valley in the vicinity of Plant 36 is a relatively flat area

approximately 1.5 miles wide. The land surface elevation of the plant

averages about 565 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of

1929 (NGVD).

Soils

The soils of Plant 36 are composed of clay, loam, sand and gravel.

Figure 3.2 illustrates the three soil types found on the plant. Table

3.2 summarizes the .soil descriptions, thicknesses, permeabilities and

some limitations of each soil type. All three soil types possess severe

use limitations for septic tank absorption fields due to poor filtra-

tion, slow percolation and/or ponding. The two soil variations of the

Eldean-Urban land complex have a highly permeable stratified sand and

gravel zone approximately 3 to 5 feet deep. The Urban land-Patton

complex soil type does not have a sand and gravel zone (Lerch, et. al.,

1982). The Urban land-Patton complex underlies approximately 75 percent

of the plant property including Buildings B, C and D. The Eldean-Urban

3-3

S^flMWtttt^^

P.I^IFJP^WfglWBmillUIWUIIU^ lk*W?!'K*»J\.WlAKn.tuuuilu\ nriKnun MnnnKnmnmnmnMm »,T J*^l ^,-1 ^J l i*J l JV i

FIGURE 3.1

USAF PLANT 36

REGIONAL PHYSIOGRAPHIC FEATURES

Eastern Lake Section

I a

SCALE L SO

MILES

SOURCE: Blaivtge/

3-4 ENGINEERING-SCIENCE

xmflma^^

fCK7QWV*7ttTFT*3Fmmw*mzKxmimj&rva*rv.r^''vv*A*ri*.'SKTv rumjrnj« nit lurrui rumjrn. MTu KM >!.« K y p w n * w *d w \

FIGURE 3.2

«=*- 3-5 ENGINEERING-SCIENCE n

■Av^wiaimwaaiMMW^ tiH

KTHmonrrcTTTwi

-» c

u u

« « u *J ■-* a. «

m in

a <

>.8

IS 53

e s

11 11

5

0 m

il

I I

o

X

X

o

O

I

o

M

o •-

X ' c T ^ 2 A

M

n

o

rj 1 -

it u u

t Ü

& S

> 2 0>

> 2 en

? «

O u

85

i- .s e J 22

o

M

O

I

s 2 0>

O U

M

i » o

M «

<N O

2 '2

I I

s r

o o

M M

2

3

a

2 0)

I 25

I« I-

äs

5- "S* o

1i >>

« e

fl ai e > «4 O «D

IS 13 »•

O A

§3 a a

»I • o

s § 9 U

•2

2 8

IB 11

:l| b S • *i > a • «5Ü

01

I 5

I

J^fi,

mSX!>&&&fil!^^^

"WWwwW^^R^^WWWWBöDPOOWWtlfW'^WWSWSK'iKr i^iririfuiivwLrwjwtrwwjvrJVUVuiiujrrwrwtnrj «'< i ^ ,-., v-, <-■ ■ w ITT ( WTJ ^Vi W\,' WU WTI VUS

land complex underlies approximately 25 percent of the plant property.

As previously stated most of the plant is covered with buildings, as-

phalt and/or concrete which greatly reduce the infiltration of precipi-

tation into the subsurface. The South Fuel Farm which is underlain at

depth by the more permeable Eldean-Urban land complex soil type (0-2

percent slope) has a clay base mixed with gravel. A membrane liner is

planned for this diked area in the near future to act as a spill control

measure and as an infiltration barrier.

SURFACE WATER RESOURCES

Plant 36 is located within the Mill Creek Basin (Ohio-Kentucky-

Indiana Regional Council of Governments, [OKI], 1977). In the area of

the plant the Mill Creek Basin is generally'broad and flat. Near

Reading, Ohio, just south of the plant. Mill Creek is approximately

twenty feet wide and one-half foot deep. Mill Creek receives urban

water runoff and industrial water discharges all along its course

through Hamilton County.

Plant Drainage

Surface water drainage from Plant 36 is controlled by numerous

storm sewer lines (Figure 3.3). Within the plant property there are

three main drainage patterns. The major drainage pattern from Building

B is east to the open ditch in the northeast corner of the property.

The drainage pattern from Buildings C and D is southwest to the plant

storm sewer lines in the southern corner of the plant property. The

drainage pattern from the South Fuel Farm is northeast to an oil/water

separator then east to the sixty-inch diameter county storm sewer which

traverses the plant property from north to south.

Inflow to and outflow from the plant property are affected by

external sources of storm water flow. Inflow to the plant occurs in

five storm sewer lines along the northern plant property border with the

General Electric Evendale Plant. Inflow also occurs in the open ditch

in the northeast comer of the plant. A third source of inflow is from

the sixty-inch diameter county storm sewer in the northern corner of the

plant.. Outflow from the plant is affected by potential sources of storm

water along an open ditch which is located approximately 400 feet from

the southern corner of the plant property (Figure 3.4). Possible storm

■»«flffiffifiöÄ&K^^

3-7

wwwnw'iunuwj^uwtwHgtvFjjw^Rrag^

FIGURE 3.3

J o -I

m U.

Ul Z «] o

1 5 a u QI& a

Ul S

a o a es «

Z <

tu a en

a -or

ENGINEERING-SCIENCE

x^w^ww«^^

WwwrW^^nWWTWFWxWWwTOreH^^^WWfW^WffJPW^^T^^TTV.'y»MIP »JI^i_^i_v^i^IJT'.^ JTIvrv"JI'J?"^"jc■ ■ ■' ■.« /•. r. '.»■.«

FIGURE 3.4

3-9 SNGINEERING - SCIENCE

MMftwamaK»^^

WHUHWmWWWM^ yyjVJtt^ Kf a.T^OT¥7rK7TTTnm«rrKn»7i-Kn KTTBJIäJI «n »nmnj

»

water inflow to this open ditch from other industrial companies may

affect the flow and water quality upstream of Plant 36.

Area Drainage

Area surface water drainage occurs in Mill Creek east of the plant

(Figure 3.4). Upstream of the plant surface water flows south in an

open ditch along the Conrail railroad. At the northeast corner of the

plant the open ditch turns east and drains into Mill Creek. Upstream of

this confluence Mill Creek receives water from four tributaries and

numerous industrial and municipal storm water discharge points. Approx-

imately two miles downstream of Plant 36 Mill Creek is joined by flow

from the West Fork of Mill Creek and approximately fourteen miles down-

stream of Plant 36 Mill Creek empties into the Ohio River.

Flooding is a potential problem along Mill Creek east of Plant 36

but flood protection levees on the plant property protect the plant from

flooding. The areas which may be affected by a 100-year flood are shown

on Figure 3.4 according to maps of the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA, 1974).

Surface Water Quality

The water quality of Mill Creek has been described as poor due to

the urban development and numerous pollutant point sources along its

course (OKI, 1977). Water quality parameters along Mill Creek which

have been detected above state standards include fecal coliform bac-

teria, ammonia, phosphorus, phenols and metals such as barium, cadmium,

iron, lead and selenium. Mill Creek has been classified as a Water

Quality Limited Segment by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(OKI, 1977).

Water quality at Plant 36 is sampled at two locations (Figure 3.5).

Station N106001 is located in the open ditch in the northeast corner of

the property. An automatic sampler is installed at this station.

Station N106002 is located at the Columbia Drive bridge approximately

700 feet southeast of the plant property. These two stations are per-

mitted by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). Flow and

water quality at these two stations may be affected by external sources

beyond the control of Plant 36. These external sources may be the other

industrial plants upstream of Plant 36 along the open ditch and along

Mill Creek itself. Selected water quality data for these two stations

3-10

^smsmsM^

HWWWWWWWEÄOTWffjTrfjTuJouriLWWFV?yTjinwIMJMirwr,jrvinjww:ww- '--.-.•,' ^ - .- - nK/OT.nKrw\iv^iMrvM v«rvi.-iw ;t»r

FIGURE 3.5

ENGINEEniNG-SClENCE

4m<^aA^v^^

BTOWWWWICWWHC 'yOTr^™>wm*l»M> ju, m pjnonomimnn^^^vwwwu^u^-^^ 7i

,/^.Ä7V'«v rw \rw w» wm» ^ ■ "*'*" ^^'

are presented in Table 3.3. Ihe data indicate that oil and grease has

been reported to be near the permit limit of 20 milligrams per liter

(mg/1) per month, but both reported values of 19 mg/1 were suspect, one

due to lab error and the other was not retested for confirmation. At

station N106001 on May 5, 1981 the following organics were detected

(Source: Ohio EPA Documents):

Parameter Concentration

Phenols

1,1,1 Trichloroethane

Di-Butyl Phthalate

0.05 mg/1

61.2 micrograms per liter (ug/1)

3.1 ug/1

No other sampling data for organic parameters has been reported. Due to

the surface water inflow from other sources to the Plant 36 sampling

station the exact source of the above organic parameters is unknown.

Surface Wate-. Ose

Surface water use of Mill Creek in the area of Plant 36 is limited

to secondary contact recreational activities such as wading and canoe-

ing. Mill Creek is not used as a public water supply source (OKI,

1977).

GROUND-WATER RESOURCES

The ground-water resources of the Plant 36 area have been reported

by Bernhagen and Schaefer (1947), Bloyd (1974), Klaer and Thompson

(1948), Schmidt (1959) and by the Ohio Water Commission (1961). Ground

water is available from one primary aquifer and two secondary aquifers

in the immediate vicinity of the plant. The primary aquifer is the

confined lower Mill Creek Valley aquifer. "Bie secondary aquifers are

the unconfineT upper Mill Creek Valley aquifer and the undifferentiated

bedrock aquifer*; within the rocks outside the buried valley Alluvium and

Outwash deposits (Schmidt, 1959).

Hydrogeologie Units

Geologically Plant 36.is located in the center of a buried glacial

valley which has been filled with deposits of sand, gravel and clay.

Figure 3.6 illustrates this valley where Alluvium and Outwash deposits

-3^r2-

^mw*^?^w*m™^

^^^^W^WÄ^WSwWT^^^WW^^WWWl^^^^^^^WW^CWS^^^TK^l'JI *Jlf*krjt-j rji ."u» -j[ nji run^ -wi "MI -grv ',»

1 o

2 h ig 2

a H o

3 < ca

Q£

£3 en

u n r* 5 5 y

* -t \n r*

0 • 2> b o i 6"-

u — -> •< «3 "H e o ^ Sd y s —

-H C rw i O o ——

5 ■«4 u oo 3 o r-y

*> Öl w »

s » 3 a i «

in •*

SI

2ao UM-*

3 iJ

a « ■ « u «MO w — *l

§ X o

~ < a x o

o o

z

8

6 2

z

< z

z

ts

s s o

e

01

o

91

O

^ M — MX — CD 4 00 O IQ CD v. ■ ^ v. 1 ^

o o o

o o

o o

£ 8 O O «3 O

•) b h

•rf Ol Bi

a si er •o -H o c >• u « -^ o *» ^ -« ■ ■ ■ ■ ( ■ 9 i-4 r^

Oi o> ■ 3

s

o •- M

I

■H ■ ■ -< •

e oi

€ S ■ -4

• *> 0> -< « sä ^s Sir if M e ig o z z

• >

«a ■ «

8 JJ

Is b « 0g u a 0 a

13 u o* a « w 4J « » « bj

n SS

01 > SS I

s c

3 0 at

--3-L3_

■ftiw^^^aaftDfta^^^

^^Jff^^^PWW^^^^TO^^nWFWWWWWW^rWTy^rWlÄIW^Ä^^^TOTWn^TOrrjfrWTWAjr^JinjflUCAXrjir^rjiv*-.«r.j« -.Jir.m -»rjr1,r..r...

FIGURE 3.6 w

ux a < a CO

3-14 ENGINEERING-SCENCE

EQWKWVQtfgyqva^

[CTKniuTiiwxAxnii7rjt^NWWVfVWVVV^>rj , n >:: FVJl «■^h'-. Kn>»p»y!<fc» wi

are exposed on the ground surface. On either side of this valley con-

solidated rocks of shale and limestone are exposed at the ground sur-

face. Table 3.4 suannarizes the hydrogeologic units and their water-

bearing characteristics. Well yields from the confined lower Mill Creek

Valley aquifer may be as much as 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) whereas

well yields from the upper Mill Creek Valley aquifer and the undiffer-

entiated bedrock aquifers may be as low as 5 to 10 gpm.

The lower aquifer within the Mill Creek Valley contains sand and

gravel deposits approximately 150 feet thick. Figure 3.7 illustrates

the stratification which is typical of the valley deposits. The well

log in Figure 3.7 is from General Electric Well Ko. 5 which is approxi-

mately 3,000 feet north of Plant 36. The stratification underlying

Plant 36 is assumed to be similar.

■flie upper aquifer within the Mill Creek Valley contains sand, silty

sand, gravel and clay. Figure 3.8 illustrates the location of a hydro-

geologic cross section of Plant 36. Figure 3.9 illustrates the varia-

tion in lithology from a predominantly clay sequence underlying Building

B to a predominantly sand sequence underlying Building C. So soil

boring data were available for the area of Building D.

Ground-Water Hydrology

Hydrologically, Plant 36 is located in an area of limited recharge

to the lower Mill Creek Valley aquifer. A clay layer approximately 20

feet thick exists under the plant in the areas of Building B and C.

This clay layer limits the recharge by precipitation, upper aquifer

water and Mill Creek infiltration water into the lower aquifer. The

existence and limited recharge capabilities of this clay layer have been

reported to be predominantly in areas south of Lockland (Schmidt, 1959).

Lockland is approximately one mile south of Plant 36. Approximately two

miles north of Lockland the upper and lower aquifers are reported to be

hydraulically connected and therefore direct vertical recharge may

occur. Plant 36 is north of Lockland but yet is still underlain by two

aquifer systems. Other facts indicating the aquifer separation are

water level comparisons in the immediate vicinity of the plant. In 1951

the shallow soil boring (40 feet deep) water levels after boring com-

pletion varied between three and ten feet deep, whereas General Electric

Well No. 3A (183 feet deep) completed also in 1951 displayed a water

mmmmmmmmi

m w\!wü wUWinntnW VW^^^ft ÄW^F^^'Sr^jkrjvv/wüWHWfvrwirwirwir^irÄi^tW^llwjJPjiWPjrrjnwrjrR -.(....

BTOOTWKTI wnurnmiBM WKJnuuwiW MXKTQPtTS^^TMj"»,* r WWl^R»n»n«JTIB71«.l-lin »."1JU1JL- .- m,s-^n ^n '^-i ».f; p« --! HU ^i i ^j« r: ^ i i

FIGURE 3.7

USAF PLANT 36

GE WELL LOG NO. 5

Dtpth In Faet Below

Ground Surface

0 3

27

u^yyy^^

43

S7 6 1 88 70

90

»•»•>:*V:-*>.*:»-',»*:«««

««illli»««»»»!

■.•p?:0.-r-vf>v

184.3 <X^^^XXXXX'x

MOLE: See- Figura 3.10 for. wail location.

■^0DH<rE:~XIS7rF~PCA1>»-T -^8 aOOILMENTA-

Qround Surface Top Soll ~ Clav

Fl.ne Sand.

Yellovn City

.Gravel & Sand

SJJLL ..Sand. & Gravel ___

Clay & Gravel.

Gravel 4 .B.o.u.Wej^j

Sand

&

Fine

Gravel

Shale Bedrock

3-17 ENGINEERING-SCIENCE

V^MMAM^^^

FIGURE 3.8

3-18 ENGINEERING-SCIENCE

IM^N^^C^ xmmmmtttK*KWimmx&

■sm^m^fc^^^

level of 56 feet. "Hie differences in water levels indicate the lack of

a hydraulic connection between the upper and lower aquifers.

Water levels within the lower aquifer in the immediate vicinity of

Plant 36 have generally risen back to their 1941 level of 56 feet below

land surface after being at a low of 105 feet below land surface in

1969. General Electric uses its wells as a source, of industrial water.

Drinking water is purchased from the Southwestern Ohio Water Company

whose wells are located thirteen miles west of Plant 36 in the Miami

River Valley. Miami River Valley ground water is a more reliable

source.

The ground-water flow directions within the upper and lower aqui-

fers of the Mill Creek Valley have not been well documented. The flow

direction within the upper aquifer is assumed to be southeast in the

immediate vicinity of Plant 36. Hie exact flow direction within the

lower aquifer is unknown, but is assumed to be south to south-east.

Localized flow directions will be affected by nearby wells such as those

for the City of Reading east of Plant 36 and the City of Wyoming south-

west of Plant 36. The closest impact on ground-water flow in the lower

aquifer at Plant 36 may be the five wells utilized by the City of

Reading approximately 1,000 feet east of the plant.

Ground-Water Quality

The ground-water quality in the Mill Creek Valley is described as

good to fair. Hardness and iron are reported to be two objectionable

water qualities (Ohio Department of Natural Resources [ODNR], 1976).

Total dissolved solids generally range from 300 to 450 mg/1 and iron

usually ranges from 0.5 to 1.5 mg/1. There have been isolated occur-

rences of low levels of organic contaminants within wells tapping the

lower valley aquifer in the vicinity of Plant 36. The sources of these

contaminants have not been identified.

Ground-Water Use

Ground-water public supply use in the vicinity of Plant 36 is

limited to two municipal well fields, one utilized by the City of

Wyoming and one by the City of Reading. Localized ground-water usage is

limited to selected industries and homes generally north and east of

Plant 36. Figure 3.10 is a water well location map of the area and

Table 3.5 summarizes selected data for each well.

3-20

yMm^arowttmy^^

FIGURE 3.10

USAF PLANT 36

WATER WELL LOCATION MAP

z t-t y

i

i *

S

« Si

> 0 <u

u J o « 0 « *J M %i IS V b

u

0 « «

5 « >,

'S &

US St a e 3 =

I i § o § o § o § o o s

z !? S

i

03 « CB 10

in

00

s

vn

"I u 0

«4 0 u

h u U H u b y W M 0 0 a M 5 U « 0 • u • u « 0 • U 0 0 o o ^ « '-' • * • * « « « -" c — w <a "< « •S « -1 II * « iH « •-S n "? "1 "I "? B| S| S| -.« ^4 • ^ « ^ • -i « ^ « -1 «I

z& 25 S" S3 23 22 '0 • D S" e g g e 1 S 3 1 1 Ü <s

si 0

85

22 « 6

S M U

on u s g u u u o

in

-i a

^ « 25

i

5

o u ö u «

"•g « > u U

^H a

2S S

u u s s 8

3=22-

mima^^

s u > i <

m o, a Sk. .4

oQ « e

3

■ 9

• Ob

II 9 S > 0 w Jo" _ « u > u DO« W " W « « W SOS

0 <a v » H »

?*" if <a e &:3

o «

Q —

5 a

0 n

•2 •

u) tu

z

t» a.

o

a. ou OJ Ob

VI M Si a.

to a.

M Ob

o o o o ■n o m in in » (n m

oe o o 39 a p- o oc o o z o a Q r* >o o z o <N

m m m N m m ♦ <e

P» 01 91 01

o CO

o 10

a - z o o

^ IN r» io i** in in * • • • • •»in io ^ ^ f*i

p* p» p* vo o •» «» fl> i> d

in at ft « 01 01

-. 8 m o

^ * * m r* ^

^5 ? ? ? ? Oi e

0

33 • «J «4 •H •^ •H ••* u v 5 ■0 •0 ■* > T" J 1 c n 10 u e ^ s 3t V V « 0 22 3 0 .5 QC OE s as QC a. u 5° «i •• 'S 'S "8 «4

0 «4 0

«3 ^

« a u & >• 5 >1 4i

a > *4 •

«S 3 M4 3 3 3 S5 ss

10 z

S| a

«J W

1 o>

0> e

•r4

8

iu . 0

>.

>i

e 3

5 a ?3 8

o 10

Oi e

•«4

8

IM o

01 01

1 g s

ss *. 9 e o E u >< be « u o o

8 § «1 Vi

8. E 5 3

•«4

B

Oi e

i t

a

S

I 8 u ■

s s s s Oi eu Ob a. a. X to >• > > > K <n OJ in to en 0) in u> in in

3-23

mx&btetttt^^^^

\

Z M <J

> a 1

ifl < •a • J S

e

S3 §

a

a 3

2 "i « Si

-> e <a 9) 3 « > O u « H —

^ 0 „ u s u « O fl *J ^4 tw «J «J u » Sß 3

<0

■a ■«

il Ot'* on« «HS

•o c >.3

« a 4J « « x: ■ u a c a —

Z O in

z o o

as z

s z

o as m z r»

z CO 8 z

o ■9 O o z

oe z

s s O I» o O (O p. — (S —

10 c ^ >0

« i 0 5

0 f?

11

2 e « - S g

o

I s

* si 0

£ 8

I

3!

« 0>

n ■ s

i u

«

•a u rO a b

1 « >

« e

I

8. s I« U ■ b 0

U C

ic Si Ü 1

I«

1.8. 35

i

b

2

2

a)

x in «a

>< to

>• 01

>l M M >< > X x in Ul 10 in Ul Ul

J=2A.

W^Z/u^ÄÄÖftWiööööOOö^

H

>

6- m a. 3

e >j « At

i d u

a 3

■a -»

• Si >< —

-c C « « 9 « > 0 <M

U » Ü a o « il rf It, « « u

3E B 3 0)

O

^ a •-* on« v H *

*! * • £ ■ O « e

X

o

0 m 'S •

o

o ~

tn tn a • r» i»

Hi — *•

tU

§ 1 ... , • • 3 5 ^8 fl-S 0 J< • M »

'8? 8f

8 iS &s £1

0U

in vi

a a

I 3 'S :s

3 U

il M -4 m

• "o a c 5 b 3 • K -ri

o ta u <a *> u • -^ «

e • u w M > M ec .^ w o b

■s ■* 1 i *> « JJ 'S c «

■ ■• 9 I

M g 0» z S a a ae o

S 9 e

u 5 «^ ü

■* a u u a, c a c u o S o m O s u * v ■ -i 13 c JJ a

I • • I • I

?

« a X

o

S e

s 0 -d s a

3

o s> H x s

a e 0

« *4 3

3 M

O

s b

s.

il sg a

e « b Tl £ E! ? S P

^ gi e <M b « e o QI o

i 9 • -• S e « ^ b u 5« « a >.

«(tWO)

M a a. a, >< u S ae w (a

e 5

3-25

^^M^^>N^^;^^SJm6^M^^

The General Electric Evendale Plant, adjacent to Plant 36, uses

on-site wells as an industrial water supply. The City of Reading is the

closest and largest single user of ground water within the immediate

vicinity of Plant 36.

BIOTIC ENVIRONMENT

Since Plant 36 is an industrial complex no significant wildlife

exists on the plant property. There are no federally-listed or state-

listed endangered or threatened species on Plant 36.

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The environmental setting data for Plant 36 indicate the following

data are important when evaluating past hazardous waste disposal prac-

tices.

1. The mean annual precipitation is 40.59 inches? the net precipi-

tation is +6.59 inches and the 1-year 24-hour rainfall event is

2.5 inches. These data indicate an abundance of rainfall in

excess of evaporation (a mean precipitation driving force)

which causes a potential for storms to create excessive runoff.

2. The'top three feet of soil underlying the plant generally con-

sists of clay and clay loam with moderate permeabilities-. A

majority of the plant is covered with buildings, asphalt or

concrete. Grass and open soil areas are very limited; there-

fore infiltration will likewise be limited and slow through the

clay.

3. A shallow water table aquifer exists approximately 3 to 10 feet

deep unde* most of the plant. This upper Mill Creek Valley

aquifer is not utilized as a ground-water source in the vicin-

ity of the plant.

4. A clay confining unit exists under the plant which separates

the upper and lower Mill Creek Valley aquifers. This clay may

not be continuous beneath the plant.

5. . A deeper confined aquifer exists approximately 50 feet deep

under the plant. This lower Mill Creek Valley aquifer is

utilized as a ground-water source in the vicinity of the plant.

3-26

fcir^WSWVUUü^^

HWWWW^^CTCTWWT--WWWüffnBCWWFrwTOyuwwT^^prvcmwuwTvuw^^r -.•.■.•. "^ rv njfc .-^ ruv n. jt n M rw rva i

6. Plant 36 discharges storm water runoff to Mill Creek approxi-

mately 1,000 feet east of the Plant. Mill Creek is a Water

Quality Limited stream due to numerous urban and industrial

discharges both north and south of Plant 36.

7. There are no federally-listed or state-listed endangered or

threatened species on Plant 36.

E

3-27

uvcaaJ K: vv v:*^^

MRWWHRBHWWWWWniWmiRf UWUUUWj^r.TnrwWVWMmjT-jWMW, '.-•». t - .^

SECTION 4

FINDINGS

This section summarizes the hazardous wastes generated by installa-

tion activities, identifies hazardous waste accumulation and disposal

sites located on the Air Force Plant 36 site, and evaluates the poten-

tial environmental contamination from hazardous waste sites. Past waste

generation and disposal methods were reviewed to assess hazardous waste

management practices at Air Force Plant 36.

INSTALLATION HAZARDOUS WASTE ACTIVITY REVIEW

A review was made of past and present installation activities that

resulted in generation, accumulation and disposal of hazardous wastes.

Information was obtained from files and records, interviews with instal-

lation employees and site inspections.

The sources of hazardous waste at Air Force Plant 36 eure grouped

into the following categories:

o Industrial Operations (Shops)

o Fire Protection Training

o Fuels Management

o Spills and Leaks

o Waste Storage Areas

o Raw Materials Storage Areas

o Pesticide Utilization

nie subsequent discussion addresses only those wastes generated at

Air Force Plant 36 which are either hazardous or potentially hazardous.

Potentially hazardous wastes are grouped with and referenced as "haz-

ardous wastes" throughout this report. A hazardous waste, for this

report, is defined by, but not limited to, Ihe Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

4-1

aaw^m^ra:^^

i.'m^yww^wM'^"'1^""011^^'"'^1^1^ jvu m^iwiuw^u m~M mt*m

Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Compounds such as

polychlorlnated blphenyls (FCB's) which are listed in the Toxic Sub-

stances Control Act (TSCA) are also considered hazardous. For study

purposes, waste petroleum products such as contaminated fuels, waste

oils and waste nonchlorinated solvents are also included in the "hazard-

ous waste" category.

No distinction is made in this report between "hazardous sub-

stances/materials" and "hazardous wastes". A potentially hazardous

waste is one which is suspected of being hazardous although insufficient

data are available to fully characterize the material.

Industrial Operations (Shops)

Summaries of industrial operations at Air Force Plant 36 were

developed from installation files and interviews. Information obtained

was used to determine which operations handle hazardous materials and

which ones generate hazardous wastes.

The wastes generated from the present industrial operations were

used as a starting point for defining the past waste generation and

waste management practices at the plant which have had changes over the

life of the plant. Past waste generation quantities are in general

commensurate with present levels. General Electric does not separate

most wastes by Plant 36/General Electric property, making separate

estimation of Plant 36/General Electric waste generation difficult. The

plants are contiguous and some work is shared (e.g., engine test cells

operate both on Plant 36 property and on General Electric property).

From this review a list was developed that contains the facility name

and number, the location, hazardous material handlers, hazardous waste

generators, and typical treatment, storage, and disposal methods. This

list is presented in Appendix C, Master List of Shops.

Those shops which were determined to be generators of hazardous

waste were selected for further investigation and evaluation. During

the site visit, interviews were conducted with personnel specifically

familiar with these shop operations and waste generation, these inter-

views focused on hazardous waste generation, waste quantities, and

methods of storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste. Histor-

ical information was obtained primarily from interviews with various

employees. Table 4.1 summarizes the information obtained from the

4-2

9 lff}^y^^WfVVr^^fl^V^^^^t^^l^^^7^^P7^^^^'»^~^.w^i.w\,%-ti jruwii jTvruwvFVnJirj jfv JrvruirwTru w- M-V -. v »-.',- . iTHirvruTurw

CO a o CO

CO

g | i_ <o

^< « UJOC cd mill 2

O « CO

<

OC I- co

Q

-J

""*""

< J CO 1 §f I Oo rfs CL «J « !

CO »I ü 1 ~ "" o Q 1 u

00 1 « T « ■ .Ä

M o i o »

TH

OD

(S)

OF

TOR

AG

E

0

19

70

i

1_

H a 1 « II ■L!

si1

K ■ U < «V

8 w 1-

8 M K

s o

o * a

^sh ST U g4 54

1 o^4 ? s ^ w u o S »8 Ö-l f 1

3 C0SJ

H- z -

o a 3

" 1

1

Ik lb a s

8 ■i 1

5 o

^•4 -»I SI §1 212 1 ilSx 1

i HI •< S 8 w 0« S-S 02 B It

1 So »=5-

a a w 1 i

5 1 a

K o

a 1

<* 3 3 i u

LU < i < 3 ■ O

1 CE - H 3 5 S

1- 8 Z 3 ö

1 > \-

1 H , • 1 Z oe C £ « * oi a£

os oe 8? 5 1 < 2: ^ i 2: ^ t i ^ »w. t ^

D O 3

< < 3 <

«j 3 j« 3 <

3 3 5 3 3

o 3 3

1 LU o u u o o o e a a

o o 1 H S S S S s § a

e a a s 3 3

1 W ■n B ^ ^*

rt (N - M •• !

1 < Hi

- 1 -i - 1 < 1 m

s a

a G <

> a a

a

\ u

\ < 2 u

oz ZlM Ul

> Ul < O « z 0. UJ -

< i i < §

3 Ul < v

i" 3< 0. in u a

a ui u a ae a z

as in i |

•" 5 ! 3 ui \

S 2

1 K ?nS §1 Q.Z

3 > 3 * o rf <J IL 3 Ul

Ul Ul

y 5 t

a. . .s

< U1Z Z

^ •- < £ £ H

Ul

"2

1-5 ui Ul OX H 3 get- «

... -1 J Ul U|

<o < < < Ul < < Z< < Ul < Z Z su 5U a. a. a. S » u ua s 2 » Z Z

et et

i O d F z u l/l Ul Ul

0. 0. o o K-

1 < (9 < < < < < CO a a a a | I X U

o 3 O o

Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul K Ü U u u u > >

a a Ul

1 "J w 55

5 UJ i a a i o Ul Ul UJ

(0 in

ae

u z 11 Ul

z < 3 2

1 LU 2

Ul j z i «5

3 «1

3 s

Ul -i Ul

> HO.

Q. <

u. £ • i

Ul ul 3 S

< | a > J Ü < u.

Ul

X 1« 3§ 3 Ul

a a a or.

z a. o X CO

Ul

is Hi

Ui z 3

o o a t- z < a.

a z

1 = < CD a. uj

Ul s

Ö u»

ui "S

!

< X « Ul > O Ul Z

< > -i a s Ul

<

>

Si o < i

11 Ul

t <

: 2

J Ul

H Ul 3 ii a Ul s

s0- u z K x 5 5 ss z Ul

Ul

1 1

Ul a 9 z 35 "<

z 31 § o 2 < z z z z i« ^ QJ Ö < a

j o a ac OH T* Z -i < V 1 <o a. m i a o ZUI A< Ul a. -i Ul

^^^ *

59

4-3

K^mBWVS^te^^

mKJl^K^^&^^^^^WBMmn&mmmmammnKnnisBsnsaxBninr WWWWWW-V^' runwrt^n;

CO a o

CO

CO

s = aQ |

8< | roc i vQJ 2

<

DC

co

< CO

9° Q. «. CO» Q

9 CC J go

z HI

LU

3? 2i5

^5

a

i § i 52

tr-r P o

a

9-Is Si si

> t F z < D O LU H CO <

1? tu 5 =2 2 <2 5 2°

31-

Si

<r >

<

> <

3 5

K K at a: «' 'OS K >

> •

et > •** > >• >- > > > '*• i. ut «i vi «i in t/i vi "I • 03 in

-i J -i J j «J -1 Ü1 ^ a < < < < < < < o -i

a O u U <J U

o 0

S 1 s 12 S

< QC LU I- <

LU

CO <

Z o I- < o o

u <

K o z a. m O

ix at t- x < uoo

Ul at 3

<

in <

a UJ I- 3

uj a ü o

z 2 < ul

i

u < Ul

mz

2 2 u.

Pi

si Ul UJ

id

* Ul

I i >■ X

Ul

in uj

u p

in a 3 a in

ui 1- in <

in at

-i

-I U. O at a > z

x

.Ul -at -•U .ui

-a

J s in J < Ul • y > u 5 i K Ul Ui U 1- z Z < in

z u o 3 < u 03 5 X < < < X S J at Ul

t- in Ul

a *

LU

< z a. O x CO

u z « 3

S <

< a. a.

o u. 0 X 3 Z < at Ul in at

ee x_ in

U

in

-i Ul (j

Ul

< It

OS

>•*• &

*$

Z

< -1 a.

Ul Ul s mz a > 1- «•u z

Ul ce

tn

Ul

Ul

a u z

Q5 < o z

3 a. z 3 <GJ z «O 3 o >> <

3 XX z o am >- in Ul u <a u

in in UJ U O ac a.

Ul z

X u a. < o

-1 UJ z -1 in

u z Ul Ul

z Z z < 5 X UJ o u -i X < u ee z

in a. i in

in 3 ui

in H ui in

> at O

< < at uj a -i a u < 3 -I z

4-4

-1 _l Ul Ul z z z z O O m in a ac Ul U| a. £ a. a. O o 1- X Z u in m K > > H a a in

< < Q

ü at UI s

UJ U| Ul

1J in 2;

?? < 1-

Ul U| i 3 3

2 a 1- H

a a a UJ uj H 3 \- UJ at < 3

X K ii a

O in in U UJ 3

> UJ

UJ

o z

mMr^yjwnvwmc&sxw^ ^^m.y^^^y^^^^^^^

y^^^WWWFWWnWWW^WTCTW «Aä^äT.^JV\ nr^yr. *nj*rj>fw-*nrjif ^ffrLrtr^ruin, ."^ v .-^ .-'■■-. > n. ■ rva "i« rva ^ JI r

detailed shop reviews including information on shop location, identifi-

cation of hazardous or potentially hazardous wastes, present waste

quantities, and treatment, storage, and disposal timelines. Changes in

the treatment, storage and disposal methods are noted on the table.

Industrial wastes generated at Air Force Plant 36 have been associ-

ated with the two General Electric Company groups, which are in operation

on the property, namely the Aircraft Engine Business Group (AEBG) and

Advanced Energy Programs Development (AEPD) and its predecessor organi-

zations. In Appendix C and Table 4.1 the shop operations are delineated

by those two organization names.

Shop operations associated with AEPD have performed metal cleaning

and plating, metal etching, machining and grinding operations, and

laboratory operations involving low-level radioactive materials. Shop

operations associated with AEBG have performed engine test activities,

metal processing and grinding/sanding.

Fire Protection Training

Fire protection training activities at Air Force Plant 36 were

performed at the eastern edge of the plant property north of Building M

(see Figure 4.1) from about 1953 until 1969. At this site, which was on

a concrete area, a solid metal pan of approximate dimensions six feet

square and six inches deep Was used for training exercises. A volume of

uncontaminated JP-5 estimated at 10 gallons was poured from two five-

gallon metal containers into the pan and ignited. Extinguishing agents

employed in training exercises were carbon dioxide and dry chemical

(Purple K). Ir-terviewers reported that the pan routinely was burned dry

and no waste discharge was reported. Fire protection training activi-

ties were discontinued on Plant 36 property in 1969.

During the 1950.'s and 1960^ a fire engine was housed on the plant

property in Building D-6. Since the 1960*3 all fire equipment has been

housed at the adjacent G.E. Evendale plant. At present fire extinguish-

ing supplies are stored in Building D-6.

Because of the nature of the activities in the fire training area

and the nature of their containment, no potential for environmental

contamination is associated with this site.

4-5

tatt£;<^tt^^^^^

IWt^RW^Ä^R^^^W^^^^P^^^^^^^TW^^^^^^T^F^rt^^^^W^^^^^^^^T^."wBÄ"v '.w"V r^ -j« -JI -^ ->FW7W"^rwrwPM vrj "j-ji -^ -^ -_«r

FIGURE 4.1

imirnjiÄjnsinuiTtJm ̂ ^^^^^W^^^n^^nW^^n*." W V". %i v. ^r. B! ä,T vi vT .«y'. ».i v.«_-. xr, V." itfl K fl KW *.". ■ETTJIä • • . ■ . ■^ Mji u>n y ,-T u n u ^ u j« WJ« » » i^ ■ ij ■

Fuels Management

Fuels used at Air Force Plant 36 consist of JP-5, #2 fuel oil, and

diesel fuel. The JP-5 fuel is used in testing production engines manu-

factured at the Evendale plant. In addition, #2 fuel oil is stored on

Plant 36 property as reserve fuel for the boiler house (Building 421 on

the G.E. Evendale plant property); diesel fuel is used in testing some

turbine engines. Table 4.2 provides a sununary of above ground fuel

storage tanks on Plant 36 property. The four tanks in the Building

T-South Fuel Farm area are above ground tanks situated on a clay-gravel

base with concrete dikes surrounding each tank for spill containment

purposes.

Fuel is transported onto the plant site by truck; fuel is not

transported across plant boundaries by pipelines'. Fuel to be used in

aircraft engine testing is at present piped from the South Fuel Farm to

the test cells by above ground piping.

Underground tanks on Plant 36 property are listed and described in

Table 4.3 and shown on Figure 4.2. Two underground tanks are known to

be in current service; Tank BB1 contains slush oil and Tank BB2 contains

diesel fuel.

Two spills of fuel have been reported in plant records and by

interviews with plant personnel. These spills are discussed further in

the spills and leaks portion of this section.

Spills and Leaks

Three spills of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials have

been reported at Air Force Plant 36. The first spill, which was in

1972, occurred adjacent to the filter building (Building U) west of the

engine test cells in Building B (see Figure 4.3). At that time a series

of underground pipes transferred JP-5 fuel from the South Fuel Farm to

the filter building (Building 0); filtered fuel was then transported by

above ground pipes to the Building B test cells. The spill was caused

by a break in an underground JP-5 fuel line within six feet of the

Building U entrance. The spill quantity was unknown but was estimated

to be 1,000 gallons. Visibly contaminated earth associated with the

spill was removed from the plant site and disposed by an off-site con-

tractor. No soil sampling or ground-water monitoring was performed at

4-7

IHWWWJIWWXKW V W CT JT W JTJ V CTTFID» Ut W. WATV^^i^r Wirw-Tt S» im mir™ rm rur w a« raru wJ r.

TABLE 4.2 FUEL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ABOVE GROUND TANK INVENTORY

Building Contents Capacity (gal.)

Construction Date

T (South Fuel Farm) JP-5 535,000 1951

T (South Fuel Farm) JP-5 535,000 , 1951

T (South Fuel Farm) JP-5 535,000 1951

T (South Fuel Farm) #2 Fuel Oil 250,000 1951

"4=8-

5

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmtmBM :*KKmX*VKt*t^^^

mm IWÄTWJ ̂ ^^^^^^&fiF^r^&&jTnKr^K^£^ZT^^^W^^&TttfT^\*\l* BjnDTDTBXS 'IT'af.nr. I,", IL'KnrBJTxriWP ■. ' ■ < • •

■ B

«n 3

a a Si

!

a u c « e 5

e •- o « -< e *< b u e « JJ « e o

e >H 0 a -< e w b 0 « « H 0

u ltd a

i s

e a-t ess

e

« b -^

« « >< a

e

Is

i

£ « b b b O a ■ « « « c 3 « *J 4J « J<

»H -< Ifl « « C «1 D * » S 3

I I

ifi B

? Ö 6 o 6 b e c e e e e M M M M M M

S8SBSS

|g g g§i M M M M M M

iSiSSS

e ■-., ö o « e e « x J< ace » D a

5SS gg g x j< j<

3 3 3

■ « ■ • i i i

5 6 8 8 bbbbbbi-1000 «OSCVSOBBB *> 4J U u u *J m M M M «aanaaaeec

8 000000000 BBBBBBBee

» 5 »

nown

nown

nown

nown

nown

nown

nown

nown

nown

nown

g g g ^ ^ ^ MMXMM*J<*MJt

5 5 S SiSSSEiSii

c • • • « • • «•««« u *> a u u u at in in ui m m

§00000 5 5 o 5 o o o o o <-l * * » * «

m S M 8

88 b b » S cw (>. mm i e o in

M M t~ * SSS522

in vn in m v « 01 01 oi o» o» o^

« • « e e « u u u m m m

11

• •••«•«••• U U U U U U it mmmmmmmmmm

o s

O B 9 O « O 8> 5 « <- o

a o öD m N • e «- « *

o o.m p o o o o M . dM^ MC«NC«f>ICO

3 O

i-i c c M M

i i e e

§ §

51 S 882 M M M

iSS

Sg tO (0 |0 jt IA in in 10 W lO tf tf

^ ^ ^ mmtnuiuiui^tnink/t

0> (0

o 8

o o r> s o> e«

s . g n j< in

i 2

•• et m « in v0 Ö88 sssaaasass

g n § T3

• c

m !• Ol

b 01

4i 4i 3 «

1 a

e « •■4 8 a o Ä

b H X *• a. e o 3 a e H -< a

M « 0> e m &

■- e e b 3 e o • e 3S

•3 5 A ■ ■ >. b b

b A

1 | 2 2 1 5

S 2 « <u • b 0

* J 0 - e *• n "H 0 3

3 3 b lb 0

« e b -4 - --a

U ? § 3 1 ■

« b • 2 Z « b « «i > s . HH • M -4 ■ . O « u a - > 3 S s ». U -1 B a 1« 2 t a. -

. "8 <u V 0> *>

ger o

any ■ 8 1

m S

1 i 8.8 tn w

•P< M •**

: 1 s it 8 «3 £ < o

p

4-9

tt^om&ftMa^^

^/W^^tV^^^JV.^'TJrJW'JVVW^Jy'JVJV'wTrj^Tr.V'.VVVV^r.' WV WJ irJ w-^r. *-- wv^ wvirviir'-'•mw^ HTM i^. r

^sa^gMaaMmsmmmi

^^^^R^^WWWWWW^JffJ^TO^CTW^W VM U-W VV ViWl IVV^-1 \- K-'.' v; T,' rTTCTW V" VJ^tfWiTlVUVF.« F. »- • >

FIGURE «».S

LLI

00

z Ui 2 3 U o a «a m h- Z < ft, u. -e 09 3

Ui o cc 3 o (0

4-11 ENGINESRING-SCIENCS

WMto^^

B,''AWyöWWfflWöw\ÄM7u» maw/mijiu t ww w w w w jwwnw^n****™™™™™*™^ jf.x/ui.n »»"v«rfi«J^«^i^w '

the site. Because of the nature and extent of the spill, a potential

for environmental contamination exists at this site.

The second spill, which occurred in January 1980, involved the

release of approximately 3,900 gallons of JP-5 from the Tank 1 dike at

the South Fuel Farm (see Figure 4.2). This fuel was discharged to Hill

Creek through Outfall 002. Clean-up operations, in Mill Creek were

thorough and complete; the fuel which entered Mill Creek was collected

and disposed of by outside vendors. A containment dam was constructed

in the Outfall 002 drainage ditch and oil absorbent booms were used to

contain and control any additional loss. The spill occurred onto the

base of the tank area within the dike; this area was a clay and gravel

area, and it is expected that some JP-5 was absorbed in the soil.

Because of the nature and extent of the spill, a potential for envi-

ronmental contamination exists at this site.

The third spill of record occurred in August 1983, and involved the

release of approximately 100 gallons of a 5% oil-water emulsion from a

coolant recycle tank. This material was discharged to Hill Creek

through Outfall 001. This spill was cleaned up by containment and

removal using oil-specific boons. Because of the nature and size of the

spill and the cleanup activities involved, no present potential for

environmental contamination.is associated with this spill.

Waste Storage Areas

Two underground waste fuel storage tanks (DD2 and DD3 in Table 4.3)

are located at the northwest of Building D-l (see Figure 4.2). These

tanks, of 20,000 gallon capacity each, were used to store waste fuels

from the Production Unit Test (PUT) Cell during the cell's period of

service (1960^ until 1973). These tanks were abandoned in place.

Abandonment included removing tank contents by pumping and filling with

water. At present all hazardous wastes generated on Plant 36 property

are stored outside the Plant 36 boundaries on GE property.

Raw Materials Storage Areas

- Three raw material drum storage areas exist on Plant 36 property.

All three are located at the rear of the plant property, to the east of

Building C. The first area is the northernmost^ and is east of the

roadway which runs north-south at the rear of the plant. This area con-

sists of a concrete pad with surrounding fence on which about 40 drums

4-12

vKffi&SÖK ü>i&»Ö2b"

'WHWirafffPSiwswwwwauJUi'ifjnrwwwj^.w^^^^^^^

were stored at the time of the site visit. No reports of environmental

contamination were obtained from plant records, interviews, or visual

inspection. The second area, to the west of the roadway, consists of a

fenced concrete pad containing about 90 irums at the time of the site

visit. No reports of environmental contamination were obtained from

plant records, interviews, or visual inspection. The third area, the

southernmost one. Is east of the roadway and consists of a fenced con-

crete area with a drain at the south end. This area contained about 150

drums at the time of the site visit and exhibited surficial contamina-

tion. The drainage from the site flows into a sump which is connected

to the storm sewer system. Because of the nature and extent of the

contamination at these sites no potential for environmental contamina-

tion is associated with them. ' '

Pesticide utilization

The pesticide utilization program for Plant 36 has been managed by

General Electric personnel for the period of record. Pesticide and

rodenticide applications for vector control are made by an outside

contractor; herbicide applications are performed by GE personnel. All

chemical mixing and equipment cleaning related to herbicides is per-

formed off Plant 36 property. Any excess herbicide as well as empty

herbicide containers are stored on GE property for off-site disposal.

The quantity of herbicide materials applied to the Plant 36 property is

small since almost all the site is covered by buildings or paved areas.

The herbicides used and the estimated quantities applied to Plant 36

property are as follows: .

DuPont Hyvar soil sterilant, 75 gallons/year

2,4-D weed killer, 15 gallons/year

DESCRIPTION OF PAST TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL METHODS

The facilities on Air Force Plant 36 property which have been used

for treatment and disposal of wastes consist of the following:

o Sanitary Sewer System

o Oil-Water Separators

—4=1-3-

^<>m^^

i——^i— mmammmmam*—******-"*"' mur« ir«-i^» fc^»fc

Each of these facilities is described in the discussion which follows.

No other on-site land treatment or disposal facilities have existed at

Plant 36 because of the lack of space and the availability of off-site

treatment and disposal facilities.

Sanitary Sewer System

Sanitary wastewater from the Plant 36 property is collected and

transported through underground pipes to the sanitary lift station

where it is combined with the sanitary wastewater from the G.E. Evendale

plant. The combined wastewater is pumped for treatment to the

Metropolitan Sewer District (MSO) Mill Creek Plant.

Oil-water Separators

Ohree oil-water separators are in use in Plant 36 property for the

control and collection of oil in water. These separators are described

in Table 4.3 and their locations are shown in Figure 4.4. The sepa-

rators are pumped on an as-needed basis and are cleaned and inspected on

a calendar basis to ensure proper operation. The oil phases are removed

from the site by an off-site contractor for reclamation. The water

phases from the separators are discharged to either the storm sewer or

sanitary sewer system as shown in Table 4.4.

EVALUATION OF PAST DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES AND FACILITIES

Review of past waste generation and management practices at Air

Force Plant 36 has resulted in identification of two sites and/or acti-

vities which were considered as areas of concern for potential contami-

nation and migration of contaminants.

Sites Eliminated from Further Evaluation

The sites of initial concern were evaluated using the Flow Chart

presented in Figure 1.2. Sites not considered to have a potential for

contamination are deleted from further evaluation during this evalua-

tion. The sites which have potential for contamination and migration of

contaminants are evaluated using the Hazard Assessment Rating Method-

ology (HARM). Table 4.5 summarizes the results of the flow chart logic

for each of the areas of initial concern.

Sites Evaluated Using HARM

The two sites identified in Table 4.5 were evaluated using the

Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology. The HARM process takes into

4-14

MMMm^m,^^

V^BODQTr

FIGURE «».«

1

4-15 ENG) NESB1NG - SC! E*C£

wJ*Jf: .^iJMfm.WUfRjJ lumu PJI mi-WB.vyjifmn<jy vni. Tnin,"irU«(lJ%-l.^rir«l»wll-wirwiojiruij«,

TABLE 4.4 OIL-WATER SEPARATORS ON AIR FORCE PLANT 36 PROPERTY

Building Number Location Use

Capacity (gallons)

Water Phase Disposition

B-1 Northeast of Building B Test Cells

J-1 East of Building J

SFF-1 South Fuel Farm

Test Cell wastes 10,000 Sanitary Sewe!

Drum Storage Wastes

1,000 Sanitary Sewer

Fuel Tank Wastes 5,000 storm Sewer*

* Monitored prior to release to storm sewer.

~4-re-

IMMMMX^^ <y..: v v.

■ ■rn-Va-tm WWWWW^WTWWf^WV^^W^'WVJ^ ^ •<p^i^!•»'"■••»——*-- n ÄJLPJVTTWVTVUll W.U Wli *li i r\^.rui n^n/^i^

TABLE 4.5 SUMMARY OF FLOW CHART LOGIC FOR AREAS OF

INITIAL HEALTH, WELFARE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN AT AIR FORCE PLANT 36

Site

Potential Hazard to Health, Welfare or Environment

Need for Further IRP Evaluation/ HARM

Action Rating

Fuel Spill - South Fuel Farm

Yes Yes Yes

Underground Fuel Leak - Yes Northwest of Building B

Yes Yes

Source: Engineering-Science

-4 17-

mmm&mmymmmmmmm^^

wwwvyvj/wuffjmywmw „ »ru.»ru«-M>ru wu irn jr» * BJI «..,»* .** »„. r<i

account characteristics of potential receptors, waste characteristics,

pathways for migration, and specific characteristics of the site related

to waste management practices. Results of the HARM analysis for the sites are summarized in Table 4.6.

The procedures used in the HARM system are outlined in Appendix E

and the specific rating forms for the two sites at Air Force Plant 36

are presented in Appendix F. The HARM system is designed to indicate the relative need for follow-on action.

4-18

\%^AWÄVLWMWJCV2WOT^ mmmmmm

WÄW'W^r^WTTi^^WWWCFWWCWV*^ ^^«^ i?T MF^ -^ -. • ^ - WM TV WW« W irVVU V W« HBiMWWBB».^

Rank

TABLE 4.6 SUMMARY OP HARM SCORES FOR

POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SITES AT AIR PORCE PLANT 36

Site Receptor Subscore

Waste Charac- teristics Pathways Subscore Subscore

Haste Management HARM

Factor Score

underground 52 Fuel Leak, Northwest of Building B

Fuel Spill in 52 South Fuel Farm

40 74 0.95 52

40 54 0.95 46

Note: HARM Score - [(Recepters + Waste Characteristics + Pathways) x 1/3] x Waste Management Factor

Source: Engineering-Science

»»«-

liMMM«MMQÖMi& mmmmmmsm^siMSSiMlMM

n VK i/v L-W t-yrwwwiA-uwsA v-V W JU: -.' •"\*^'vi*A*TWTXn «A-*Hiuntinon(jnurKjr«ii i, s y - w^w WüMmmuna m

SECTION 5

CONCLUSIONS

The goal of the IRP Phase I study is to identify sites where there

is potential for environmental contamination resulting from past waste

disposal practices and to assess the probability of contamination migra-

tion from these sites. The conclusions given below are based on field

Inspections; review of records and files; review of the environmental

setting; interviews with plant personnel and Itodal, state and federal

government employees; and assessments using the HARM system. Table 5.1

contains a list of the potential contamination sources identified at Air

Force Plant 36 and a summary of the HASH scores for those sites.

ONDERGROOND FOEL LEAK NORTHWEST OP BUILDING B

There is sufficient evidence that the underground fuel leak

northwest of Building B (at Building 0) has potential for creating

environmental contamination and a follow-on investigation is warranted.

The fuel leak, which occurred in 1972, resulted in the excavation of

visually contaminated soil. No soil sampling or ground-water sampling

was performed at the site. The fuel leak site is located in clay to

clay loam surface soils with moderate permeabilities but is underlain by

deeper stratified sand and gravel with high permeabilities at approxi-

mately three feet deep. Ground water is present at a d^fth of ten feet.

The site received a HARM score of 52, in part because the restraints of

the HARM system required application of a Waste Management Factor of

0.95. However, the cleanup at the site immediately after the incident

would indicate a lower Waste Management Factor, and hence, a lower final

HARM score would be more realistic.

FUEL SPILL AT SOUTH FUEL FARM

There is not sufficient evidence that the fuel spill at the South

Fuel Farm has potential for creating environmental contamination and a

~5^r

^ammsM^

wrTtWZmKXfiKX&W&mtmmmmmmmmmmmm —i mtmammMmamgKKn KM <ui t.tH.UKMKU^M.lM 'I« , Jill.« iu»iL»l|

TABLE 5.1 SITES EVALUATED USING THE

HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING METHODOLOGY AT AIR FORCE PLANT 36 ..

Rank Site Operation Period

Underground Fuel Leak 1972 Northwest of Building B

Fuel Spill at South Fuel Farm 1900

HARM Score (1)

52

46

(1) This ranking was performed according to the Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology (HARM) described in Appendix E. Individual rating forms are in Appendix F.

5-2

WWONQWMWM^^ mmmmsmsmm

^IMWJIL»'^ l'JH, lu «. IL ■ ■ IJJ.H

follow-«« investigation is not warranted. However, confirmation of the

absence of significant contamination is advisable prior to installation

of a synthetic liner system. The spilled fuel at this site reached Mill

Creek via storm sewers. The soil underlying the South Fuel Farm

consists of clay and clay loam surface soils with moderate

permeabilities but is underlain by deeper stratified sand and gravel

with high permeabilities at approximately three feet deep. Ground water

is present at a depth of ten feet. The site received a HARM score of

46.

5-3

8 ^kfl™«^^

SECTION 6

RECOMMENDATIONS

Two sites were identified at Air Force Plant 36 as having the

potential for environmental contamination. These sites have been evalu-

ated and rated using the HARM system which assesses their relative

potential for contamination and provides the basis for determining the

need for additional Phase II IRP investigations. One of the two sites

has sufficient potential to create environmehtal contamination and

warrants a Phase II investigation. The sites evaluated have been

reviewed concerning land use restrictions which may be applicable.

RECOMMENDED PHASE II MONITORING

General

The subsequent recommendations are made to further assess the po-

tential for environmental contamination from waste disposal areas at Air

Force Plant 36. The recommended actions are sampling ..and monitoring

programs to determine if contamination does exist at the site. If con-

tamination is identified in this first-step investigation, the Phase II

sampling program will probably need to be expanded to define the extent

and type of contamination, the recommended monitoring program is sum-

marized in Table 6.1 and discussed below for the site. Soil sampling

and ground-water monitoring well installations should be performed using

the hollow-stem auger/split-spoon method. Split-spoon samples should be

collected continuously. Wells should be installed using four-inch dia-

meter PVC threaded casing and screens. The screens should be open to

the full saturated thickness of the upper Mill Creek Valley aquifer and

at least three feet above the water table to allow any fuel to enter the

well. The annular seal should be at least one foot below ground level.

During soil sampling and well installations an organic vapor analyzer

■5=r

^*C^XM^ Mt&m

TABLE 6.1 RECOMMENDED MONITORING PROGRAM FOR PHASE II IRP

AT AIR FORCE PLANT 36

Site (Rating Score)

underground Fuel Leak Northwest of Building B (52)

Fuel Leak in South Fuel Farm Area

Recommended Monitoring Program

One soil boring and subsequent moni- toring well for confirmation of contamination. If confirmed, three additional we^ls to define extent of contamination. Soil and ground-water analyses (see Table 6.2).

One soil boring by hand auger tech- nique for confirmation of contamina- tion. If confirmed, three additional borings to define extent of contami- nation. Soil analyses (see Table 6.2).

Source: Engineering-Science.

-6-2-

MN v^>v VyVV.V^vw.v.vwvy^ vv^^>vv^ ^ ^ ^ .^.-, ^ . , . , ^ M ....

(OVA), HNU meter or equivalent and an explosimeter should be used.

Selected soil samples and ground-water samples should be collected for

chemical analyses as subsequently described.

Site-Specific Recommendations

The two sites for which the subsequent recommendations are made are

shown in Figure 6.1. The underground fuel leak northwest of Building B

(at Building U) has a potential for environmental contamination and

monitoring of this site is recommended. One soil boring within the area

of the fuel line excavation should be drilled to an approximate depth of

40 feet or until confining clay layer is encountered. Selected soil

samples (approximately 8) should be analyzed for the parameters in Table

6.2, List A. Following the soil boring and sampling a monitoring well

should be installed within the borehole and the' ground water analyzed

for the parameters in Table 6.2, List B. If ground water contamination

is confirmed, a minimum of three additional wells should be installed

downgradient of the site to determine the extent of ground-water con-

tamination. A Geo-Flow Meter or equivalent equipment should be utilized

to aid in the determination of ground-water flow rates and flow direc-

tions .

The fuel leak in the south fuel farm area has a minor potential for

environmental contamination and monitoring of this site is recommended.

One soil boring using the hand auger technique to an approximate depth

of 10 feet should be completed. Selected soil samples (approximately

three) should be analyzed for the parameters in Table 6.2, List A. If

soil contamination is confirmed at least three additional borings should

be completed to determine the extent of soil contamination.

— ~^=r

mmmmmmmmm

FIGURE 6.1

m o e

-3- o 03

6-4

•.VW^V

ES SNGINESBING-SCIENC?

TABLE 6.2 RECOMMENDED LIST OP

ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS FOR PHASE II IRP AT AIR FORCE PLANT 36

List A

Soil Analyses

Oil and Grease Purgeable Organics

EPA Method Number

413.2 8240

List B

Ground-Water Analyses

Oil and Grease pH Specific Conductance Temperature Volatile Organics

Source: Engineering-Science

1^

413.2 150.1 120.1 170.1 624

4=5.

ifeW«)W^

I^MMMMWiW.WiJU^ WIH WT-il«-!* »Ä J^-W T

TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX G

APPENDIX H

APPENDIX I

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

LIST OF INTERVIEWEES AND OUTSIDE AGENCY CONTACTS

List of Interviewees Outside Agency Contacts

MASTER LIST OF SHOPS

PHOTOGRAPHS

ÜSAF INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING METHODOLOGY

SITE HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING FORMS

GLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS

REFERENCES

. INDEX OF REFERENCES TO POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION

SITES AT AIR FORCE PLANT 36

Page No.

A-1

B-1 B-2

C-1

D-1

E-1

F-l

G-1

H-l

1-1

354399"

»w«R»öyQ«WMnKMMB^^ ££&£

OTiÄJWWWI^^^rafrjfnl^^WWrofWWWHWr^^WW^^WWDOrok ^ r^Tvi A*r»Ä.'vj-w'^.^''f' ^ ■r'.' 'y WJr«JVU iniii

APPENDIX A

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

XfrNKtftft^^

IWIl^n^vxWWLWWWMnWWRKCTW^^^ xnitrmAJvi m u-v vn UniUX WK«/

ES ENGMEERINQ-SCICNCS

Biographical Data

H. DRN HARI4AN, JR. Hydrogeologist

^

Education

B.S., Geology, 1970, university of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN

Professional Affiliations

Registered Professional Geologist (Georgia NO.569) National Water Well Association (Certified Water Well Driller No.

2664) Georgia Ground-Water Association

Experience Record

1975-1977 Northwest Florida Water Management District, Havana, Florida. Hydrogeologist. Responsible for borehole geophysical logger operation and log interpretation. Also reviewed permit applications for ndw water wells.

1977-1978 Dixie Well Boring Company, Inc., LaGrange, Georgia. Hydrogeologist/Well Driller. Responsible for borehole geophysical logger operation and log interpretation. Also conducted earth resistivity surveys in Georgia and Alabama Piedmont Provinces for locations of water- bearing fractures. Additional responsibilities included drilling with mud and air rotary drilling rigs as well as bucket auger rigs.

1978-1980 Law Engineering Testing Company, Inc., Marietta, Georgia. Hydrogeologist. Responsible for ground-water resource evaluations and hydrogeological field opera- tions for government and industrial clients. A major responsibility was as the Mississippi Field Hydrologist during the Installation of both fresh and saline water wells for a regional aquifer evaluation related to the possible storage of high level radioactive waste in the Gulf Coast Salt Domes.

1980-1983 Ecology and Environment, Inc., Decatur, Georgia. NUS Corporation, Tucker, Georgia. Hydrogeologist. Respon- sible for project management of h/drogeological and geophysical investigations at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Also prepared Emergency Action Plans and Remedial Approach Plans for U.S. Environmental Protec-

A-l

i

^mmmBwmasmmmmmmm m$

■WUUUVIMUUJIUUJiP retfTLmiuiiunut*^^^^™™*1™*"^^

ES ENGWEEBING-SCIENCE

H. Dan Harman, Jr. (Continued) Page 2

1980-1983 tion Agency. Additional responsibilities included use of the MITRE hazardous ranking system to rank sites on the National Superfund List.

1983-Oate Engineering-Science, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. Hydrogeolegist. Responsible for hydrogeological and geophysical investigations at inactive and active hazardous waste sites. Hydrogeological investigations include evaluation of existing groundwater monitoring systems, installation of new groundwater monitoring wells, ground water and soil sampling, preparation of Part B applications, closure and post-closure plans and hazard assessment ratings. Geophysical investigations include surface electrical resistivity and magnetometer surveys to aid in the delineation df waste site boundar- ies, contents, covers and underlying hydrogelogical fea- tures, as well as adjacent hydrogeological features and groundwater contamination plumes migrating from sites.

Publications and Presentations

"Geophysical Well Logging: An Aid in Georgia Ground-Water Projects," 1977, coauthor: D. Watson, The Georgia Operator, Georgia Water and Pollution Control Association.

"Use of Surface Geophysical Methods Prior to Monitor Well Drilling," 1981. Presented to Fifth Southeastern Ground-Water Conference, Americus, Georgiai

"Cost-Effective Preliminary Leachate Monitoring at an Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Site," 1982, coauthor: S. Hitchcock. Presented to Third National Conference on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Washington, O.C.

"Application of Geophysical Techniques as a Site Screening Procedure at Hazardous Waste Sites," 1983, coauthor: S. Hitchcock. Proceedings of the Third National Symposion and Exposition on Aquifer Restoration and Ground-Water Monitoring,-Columbus, Ohio.

"Practical Application of Earth Resistivity Methods in Phase II of the Installation Restoration Program," 1984, coauthor: J. Baker. r "ation at the 13th Environmental Systems Symposium, American

Preparedness Association, Bethesda, Maryland.

rch of North Georgia's Ground Water: Application of Geophysics ana uydrogeology," 1984, coauthors: J. Bakar and S. Yankee. The Georgia Operator, Georgia Water and Pollution Control Association.

A-2

ümmTMVWW^Nm .^msoMeJ

»WWW UtUMMu.™ wrarronnr.: r-nr^n w w-w ™ r-^ . Ä'V WTJTTU «H. Warw^r v

ES ENGMEERINQ-SCIENCE

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

Eric Heinman Snider

Manager, Industrial Waste Department

Education

B.S. in Chemistry (Magna Cum Laude), 1973, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.

M.S. in Chemical Engineering, 1975, Clemson university, Clemson, S.C. Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering, 1978, Clemson University, Clemson,

S.C.

Professional Affiliations

Registered Professional Engineer (Oklahoma No. 13499, Georgia No. 14228)

Diplomate, American Academy of Environmental Engineers Certified Professional Chemist, A.I.C. American Institute of Chemical Engineers American Chemical Society American Society for Engineering Education Society of Automotive Engineers

Honorary Affiliations

Sigma Xi Tau Beta Pi Phi Kappa Phi Who's Who in the South and Southwest, 1981 Outstanding Young Men of America, 1983

Experience Record

1971-1978 Texidyne, Inc., Clemson, S.C, Staff Chemist and Consultant. Responsible for overall management of laboratory facilities and some wastewater engineering studies. Performed incinerator performance studies. Participated in a study to examine feasibility of process wastewater recycle/reuse in textile finishing and dyeing operations.

-854J95- A-3

y-^mmmmmmmmmm^^^^^m^^^^,^^^^

IWlfV* WWWWWWP OltKJWMSJnubHJruJrw wwm^

ES ENGWEERING-SCIENCE

Eric H. Snider (Continued)

1976-1977

1978-1982

I

1982-1983

1983-1984

1984-Date

Publications

Clemson University, Clemson, S.C, Chief Analyst on airborne fluoride monitoring project in Chemical Engineering Department, performed for Owen-Corning Fiberglas Corp., Toledo, Ohio.

The university of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK., Assistant Pro-

fessor of Chemical Engineering and Associate Director, University of Tulsa Environmental Protection Projects (UTEPP) Program. Normal teaching duties; research centered on specialized petroleum refinery problems of water and solid wastes and oil-water emulsions. Super- vised an industry-sponsored research program in the area of oil-water emulsion breaking technologies.

The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK., Associate Pro- fessor of Chemical Engineering and Director of UTEPP Program. Normal teaching duties; researched and wrote tJive monographs on environmental areas; including. Incineration, flotation, gravity separation, screen- ing/sedimentation, and equalization.

Engineering-Science, Senior Engineer. Responsible for a wide variety of waste treatment, chemical process, resource recovery, energy, incineration and air pol- lution control activities for industrial and govern- mental clients.

Engineering-Science, Manager of Industrial Waste Department. Responsible for managing a department consisting of chemical, civil, and environmental engineers and scientists performing a variety of projects for industrial and municipal clients.

32 technical publications, including five technical monographs.

854J95 -A-4-

■W

LttrtWW^^H^^raVWfrm^^ mmämmmmmmuimm

^WWflFWWWWWnSW^V^rv^-jviArjv-^^r.'v^.Äafv^jvvv jww uwww uvjvvirjnni \r* v^ i.-» w^ «-n w nu «. * -.j - • ■ .

APPENDIX B

LIST OP INTERVIEWEES AND OUTSIDE AGENCY CONTACTS

»^«KffifflKM^^

VU\^VU'^^rj\F.wA,H^f/J'iAnÄAÄ-'iWWV 'TV-'v rwwvvwvwjwvuvu,- .* . rwv yn fwu wi; irs-nfM w^. Jit

TABLE B.I LIST OF INTERVIEWEES

Most Recent Position*

Years of Service at this Installation

1. Civilian

2. Civilian

3. Civilian

4. Civilian

5. Civilian

6. Civilian 7. Civilian 8. Civilian 9. Civilian 10. Civilian 11. Civilian

12. Civilian 13. Civilian

14. Civilian 15. Civilian

16. Civilian 17. Civilian

18. Civilian

Facilities Engineer Fuels System Manager Manager, production Engine Test Manager, Environmental Systems Manager, Development Engine Test Quality Lab Chemist • ' Grounds Planner Quality Lab Chemist Assistant Chief of Security Environmental Engineer Facilities Designer utilities Engineer Industrial Hygienist Health and Safety Specialist-Decontamination Supervisor, Facilities Maintenance Facilities Manager Manager, Plant Utilities Maintenance Manager, Building Test

34 18 7

12 10 27

1 33 1 1

28 19 33 29 1

10 34 12

* All interviewees were employees of General Electric Company.

■^d»»««^«»^^

Binnunnnnni WWW.VV' jlnK\ni\rii\rdUki\ni mWWW)LwWfX)L9.MW\W*vj\iiM'iWTi*'drjy\iv-sK ? /HVWWVCBvnJiAr^nTu^nn/wwTa^r

TABLE B.2 OUTSIDE AGENCY CONTACTS

City of Reading Water Plant Reading, Ohio (513) 554-1190

City of Wyoming Water Department Wyoming, Ohio (513) 821-8044

Hamilton County Health Department 138 East Court Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 632-8458

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management

361 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43216 (614) 449-635.7

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management

7 East 4th Street Dayton, Ohio (513) 461-4670

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Water Quality and Monitoring

361 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43216 (614) 466-9092

Don Shorter Chief Operator

Water Department Clerk

Larry McGraw Supervisor for Plumbing

Paul Perdi Inspector

Darryl Fowler Inspector

I Dick Roberts Supervisor

s

UJäMMMäIXWMä^^

■B-2'

^M&mMsaMaaa^^ mmmmsmm

W^fKfSWf9SnfWIWWf!}iMKiaXf9J^VJ]K\NKWWumuBui^MVt*K viajfiur^w ̂ nwiHR-rrfl IVXIW m« tnur« irm wmtnuta.» m., m > • ~ »* -vai.-

TABLE B.2 (Continued)

OUTSIDE AGENCY CONTACTS

Oh.lo Environmental Protection ' Agency

Division of Water Supply- Ground Water

361 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43216 (614) 466-8307

Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Division of Water Water Planning Fountain Square, Bldg. E-3 Columbus, Ohio 43224 (614) 265-6757

Ohio Department of Natural - Resources

Division of Water Flood Plain Management Fountain Square, Bldg. E-3 Columbus, Ohio 43224 (614) 265-6753

Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Division of Water Water Inventory Section Fountain Square, Bldg. E-3 Columbus, Ohio 43224 (614) 265-6739

Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Division of Wildlife Fountain Square, Bldg. C-3 Columbus, Ohio 43224 (614) 265-6338

Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments 426 East 4th Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 621-7060

Dr. Kenneth Applegate Director

Arthur F. woldorf Supervisor

Diana L. Simms Supervisor

Hike Hallfrisch Geologist

Dennis Case Biologist

Dory Montezumi Assistant Director

mmm^Kmrn^K^

■wrawwwwp KAK/lJCT TOBWRWPWW flWWWWK.» WMIWUKAWIWWWKffKf «flH.-.^MJUTKTiCTX'x.'Tx.'f^^ vw

TABLE B.2 (Continued)

OUTSIDE AGENCY CONTACTS

Southwestern Ohio Water Company 11137 Main Street Sharonville, Ohio (513) 554-1188

Frank Divo Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 3990 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43216 (614) 231-3416

Kent Krooneneyer Wildlife Supervisor

U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division

975 West Third Avenue Columbus, Ohio 45202 (614) 469-5553

Ann Arnett Information Officer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 5 Hazardous Waste Section 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 (312) 886-6747

Rose Freeman State Coordinator

B-4

W^WW^WJlPWWWnWWWyt'WWWLW.^MIWlIW.WUl W.V."WrJ«\Krj* • Ji^jr^jnunvtn'.ITSITFI»nurRk-n IT» t » w um,» t.«k«u>v.« U~VUT hTB LTB IT-« U~l* LPHM*

APPENDIX C

MASTER LIST OF SHOPS

lOK^^m^fr^^

l^MmM^MJinumwvvWWyMnnKlElVmvrWTm u v * r-jK ^ r,. ri*.nr. r VM w\i n

TABLE C.I MASTER LIST OF SHOPS

Name Location

Handles Hazardous Materials

Generates Hazardous Wastes

Typical TSD Methods

Advanced Energy Program Development (iXEPD)

Cleaning and Plating Shop

Cleaning Line

Yes

Yes

Yes Neutralization to MSD

» ' Yes Off-site

contractor

Rhodine Leach Process D Yes Yes Evaporation, salt to off-site contractor

Machine Shop Yes Yes Off-site contractor

Laboratories Yes Yes Off-site contractor

Nuclear Systems Shops

D,C-West Yes Yes Off-site contractor

Aircraft Engine Business Group (AEBG)

Plating Line C-East Yes Yes Neutralization

Bonderite Facility ' C-East Yes Yes Neutralization to MSD

Wingtip Paint Booths C-East Yes Yes Off-site contractor

Bonderite Paint Booths

C-East

Grinding/Deburring C-East Shop

Yes

Yes

.£rl

Yes

Yes

.flW^WM^^^

Off-site contractor

Off-site contractor

TABLE C.I MASTER LIST OF SHOPS

(Continued)

Name Location

Handles Hazardous Materials

Generates Hazardous Wastes

Typical TSD Methods

Hollow Blade Facility, Electrostream Drilling Shop B

J-47 Engine Overhaul Plating Area B

Engine Assembly Area B

Plasma Spray B

Laboratory B

Thrust Reverser Manufacturing Shop B

Engine Test Cells B

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Neutralization to MSD

Neutralization to MSD

Off-site contractor

Off-site contractor

Off-site contractor

Off-site contractor

Off-site contractor

Note: MSD « Metropolitan Sewer District.

"0=2"

V™L^> L™ mr</u.j.?j(iu^>JW^j,™v^^^

^^TVWJTT&T^T*^* vv^Äf^mv^ur-^yn^'7" x^jwy* MJ\MK VfiMT** ntt ■

APPENDIX D

PHOTOGRAPHS

KMMOMMMQ^^

nWfW^^^WWWWW^^^^^WWWffWW^WWJJfW '" ' -"', '• .^ -• -. .'•T'^ri.VT'.'V'^K^1:.''1''.' • ■ -

USAF PLANT 36

South Fuel Farm »Observer Facing East

Outfall 001, Observer Facing East

D-l ■ENGlNlEffmG^r.fPRCE-

^y&^ v^^M^^m^i^^

iW^!KW^J^Wmk*MW1VMM^^ VT HTUrFJfRjmjrsjrnJi rjt rji ru« rvi r^n rv..ivi f ^M r*i M-ii »r\/ irv.

USAF PLANT 36

Outfall 002, Observer Facing West

D-2 ENGINEERING-SCIENCE

■m^.v^^^

^^I^^^^^^^^^^^^nWf^WWWWW^R^l^^^^^^WI^&M""» "<--*T<."-t^».' V'V>^1LJH."11FV^ «NVSWV^W^KFTCnt^TL^TlWXFX^X^ll.lM'l

V-3

^y^^^^m^^^^y^^^

^^^BÄWWWWWWW^^^^J^J^^Jf7UfTUL7^«TJ.T»,^ ir*v* v* uvrn WWTUVTTWOTrvvwi' -^."VÄT ^n-^nnr\ .flJl «Ji ä.^ PWI »WI mi «-^ wn an ^.-la

APPENDIX E

USAF INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM

HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING METHODOLOGY

KM^^Mv^^a^^^^

)l« « äF immj? lU IWIWIW JUULRV^ Rfl W V!1WK':R^^T«cn:;'

APPENDIX E

OSAF INSTALLATION RESWRATION PROGRAM

HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING METHODOLOGY-

BACKGROUND

The Department of Defense (DOD) has established a comprehensive

program to identify, evaluate, and control problems associated with past

disposal practices at DOD facilities. One of the actions required under

this program is to: , <

"develop and maintain a priority listing of con- taminated installations and facilities for remedial action based on potential hazard to public health, welfare, and environmental impacts." (Reference: DEQPPM 81-5, 11 December 1981).

Accordingly, the United States Air Force (USAF) has sought to establish

a system to set priorities for taking further actions at sites based

upon information gathered during the Records Search phase of its In-

stallation Restoration Program (IRP).

The first site rating model was developed in June 1981 at a meeting

with represenatives from USAF Occupational and Environmental Health

Laboratory (OEHL), Air Force Engineering and Services Center (AFESC),

Engineering-Science (ES) and CH2M Hill. The basis for this model was a

system developed for EPA by JRB Associates of McLean, Virginia. The JRB

model was modified to meet Air Force needs.

After using this model for 6 months at over 20 Air Force installa-

tions, certain inadequacies became apparent. Therefore, on January 26

and 27, 1982, representatives of USAF OEHL, AFESC, various major com-

mands, Engineering-Science, and CH2M Hill met to address the inade-

quacies. The result of the meeting was a new site rating model designed

to present a better picture of the hazards posed by sites at Air Force

installations. The new rating model described in this presentation is

referred to as the Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology.

E^r

ftti^mm^^^

TO^WUUJUl«MMMn*^.^

PURPOSE

The purpose of the site rating model is to provide a relative

ranking of sites of suspected contamination from hazardous substances.

This model will assist the Air Force in setting priorities for follow-on

site investigations and confirmation work under Phase II of the IRP.

This rating system is used only after it has been determined that

(1) potential for contamination exists (hazardous wastes present in

sufficient quantity), and (2) potential for migration exists. A site

can be deleted from consideration for rating on either basis.

DESCRIPTION OF MODEL

Like the other hazardous waste site ranking» models, the U.S. Air

Force's site rating model uses a scoring system to rank sites for

priority attention. However, in developing this model, the designers

incorporated some special features to meet specific DOD program needs.

The model uses data readily obtained during the Records Search

portion (Phase I) of the IRP. Scoring judgments and computations are

easily made. In assessing the hazards at a given site, the model

develops a score based on the most likely routes of contamination and

the worst hazards at the site. Sites are given low scores only if there

are clearly no hazards at the site. This approach meshes well with the

policy for evaluating and setting restrictions on excess DOD properties.

As with the previous model, this model considers four aspects of

the hazard posed by a specific site: the possible receptors of the

contamination, the waste and its characteristics, potential pathways for

waste contaminant migration, and any efforts to contain the contami-

nants. Each of these categories contains a number of rating factors

that are used in the overall hazard rating.

The receptors category rating is calculated by scoring each factor,

multiplying by a factor weighting constant and adding the weighted

scores to obtain a total category score.

-2^2-

usmm aa^ft^^

'WWWWWTOÖ'w,:??3n:s^rwww^^ WBKKmmmrammD ^V-LBH !V\ wm ?vi IVA .-vi ^A f^n iMMsn i%i\ *s\jvi^m^-,j*.n

The pathways category rating is based on evidence of contaminant,

migration or em evaluation of the highest potential (worst case) for

contaminant migration along one of three pathways. If evidence of

contaminant migration exists, the category is given a subscore of 80 to

100 points. For indirect evidence, 80 points are assigned and for

direct evidence, 100 points are assigned. If no evidence is found, the

highest score among three possible routes is used. These routes are

surface water migration, flooding, and ground-water migration. Evalua-

tion of each route involves factors associated with the particular mi-

gration route. The three pathways are evaluated and the highest score

among all four of the potential scores is used.

The waste characteristics category is scored in three steps.

First, a point rating is assigned based on an assessment of the waste

quantity and the hazard (worst case) associated with the site. The

level of confidence in the information is also factored into the "'*

assessment. Next, the score is multiplied by a waste persistence .

factor, which acts to reduce the score if the waste is not very

persistent. Finally, the score is further modified by the physical

state of the waste. Liquid wastes receive the maximum score, while

scores for sludges and solids'are reduced.

The scores for each of the three categories are then added together ■*£

and normalized to a maximum possible score of 100. Then the waste man- 2'J.

agement practice category is scored. Sites at which there is no con-

tainment are not reduced in score. Scores for sites with limited con-

tainment cam be reduced by S percent. If a site is contained and well

managed, its score can be reduced by 90 percent. The final site score

is calculated by applying the waste management practices category factor

to the sum of the scores for the other three categories.

EsO-

«WM^-Cv^-C-vi^Ä tätä^l*^^

W™flüi\y',(V.'vVVVX1«'VLVVVV,VTArLW,^ri WWDCT H^WCTSTBTTSnTCT'iirairoKn« V ■. >^ '%'.■,•;•, r,-', ^ .-. ■! ^.T » n ».-, -. -...-. , -■. ..T _ ' W RM " • n-1« -

FIGURE 1

l

E-4

^jmSäBflama^^

i rji run r-Jk r-M n* rj« rw»rm > **■ ^-

FIGUM: 2 HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING METHODOLOGY FORM

?»<?• 1 of 2

SME or srrr_ vxxszaa OAXS OF QPStAXZOH OK CCSQUSOd^

awasL/onsxson cowarra/nfsn>TynoH_ StXBBMSD BI

I RECEPTORS

a*tiws ?ac:or

Taetoc latinq (0-3) Multiplier

factor Scare

Haxiaua Poasihla

Seara

X. ?ooul»tion within 1,000 JMC O< sit« 4 j

B. Diatane* to n«acest w«U. 10

C. üand us«/t8niiw witäia 1 ailt radius ' ' 3

0. Distance to cvsvrration boundary 6 !

C. Critical cnvitona«nca within 1 ail« radius of sit* 10

f. watae aualitv of naatast snrfac* watat bodv_ «

C Ground w«tar us« of use«caosc aouifac 9 -

a. Toeuiacion sarrad by suzfaea watar supply mithin 3 nilas downatraaa of sit» < 1

I. Population sarrad by ^zeuad-watar supply within 3 ailea of sita

1 '' 6 r 1

Subtotals

aacaptors subscoc« (100 X factor scuta subtotal/aaxia'aa scora subtotal) '"

IL WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

A. Salact tha factor seora baaad OR tha eatiaatad quantity, tha dagtaa of haxaxd, and th* confidence level of tha Inforaation.

1. Waste quantity (S - small, M - madliai, I. ■ larga) ,

2. Confidanc« 1*»«1 (C • confixaad, S - suspactad)

3. Hasard rating (H - high, -M « aadiua. L • lav) ______

Factor Subaeore X (fzos 20 to 100 h*a«d on factor score aatrlxl

3. Xpply parsistanea factor Factor Suäacora X X Parsiatance Factor • Subaeore B

C. Xpply physical state aultiplier

Subaeore 3 X Physical State Suitiplxar - Waste Csaractariatica Subaeore

" E=S-

JM^M^O^fr^^

FIGURE 2 (Continued) Pa<3« : of 2

I1U PATHWAYS

Rieinq r«ctor

Facsoc Maximun Rating raetor Possible fO-3) >wleiBl.i«r Scecc Scote

A. I£ Shaft is «vldtne« of migration of bazardoua contaminants, assign aaximua factor subscsre of 100 points is: direct rridenc« oc 80 points for indirect evidence. If direct evidence exists then proceed to C. If ao evidence or indirect evidence exists, proceed to 8.

Subscore

B. Rate the migration potential for 3 potential pathways: surface water migration, flooding, and ground-water migration. Select the highest rating, and proceed to C'

1. Surface water migration

Distance co nearest surface water «

Met preciaitation 1

Surface erosion 1

Surface seraeabilitY < i 1 Rainfall intensitv 1

Subtotals

Subscot.e (100 Z factor score subtotal/maximum score subtotal)

2. flood1no

Subseere (100 x factor score/3)

3. Ground-water sigtatlon

Seoth to ground water 8

Set oreeioitation ! . 1 i

Soil oeraeabilitv 3

Suosurfaee flows 3 1 Direct access w ground water

i

• 1 8 I !

Subtotals

Subseere (100 x factor score sub'total/maxlaua score subtotal)

C. Highest pathway subscore.

Inter the highest subscore value from K, B-t, B-2 oc B-3 above.

Pathways Subscore

IV. WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

A. Average the three subscoces foe receptors, waste characteristics, and pathways.

" Receptors Haste Characteristics Pathways

Total divided ay 3 ■ Cross Total Scstrt

3. Apply factor for waste containment from waste management practices

Cross Total Seer« s Waste Management Practices Factor ■ ?lnal Score

X~

E-6

^•»X'vSW ixma^MQiffltta^^

^ i Cd J Q

Cd

Cd CO w <

g <

a o a

2

C ^ M «a * to •

a a t) = e a i - 1 — — - fi e <w w

e a 0 0 HB _ Ä »• 0 0 a u »i

a a a •* a u « 1 a a M —

S — a 0 — 0 0 a

^ *l 0 >• c i » • 'S > • v « « a - to > e • a ^ 41 v « M a a M a a — e W <w a a a a - c a e

■« M W w w M a u .-. u a o m 0 — 0 a • a • " "2 ti a £ o 0 A a ü • ■ 2 *» o

c 0 a « - a a

« S a o>q w a x £

a ?5 "3^8 to «n «1 g^ -^ to to a

<o u a — a a 2 ** C

a 0 0 ö« 0 ä —

■<-i C « Ü «i a e a ■ — a

— 6. 1 •" to -• 0 to a

c a

0 a a B, a « 0 0 K a Z 'S a w s S 0 u u 0 > (9

• a . •M 1 a . ? tu w 8 ■ 1 0 0

— *> ^J & 1 A • a —

e J* ^ ^ a a a a ■ a *> 0 * to x > > u — » & ^ a a- to a

0 U 0 3 w B a *i 0 » a M M 0 S M w a a >•• u a to h» *i a

a 0 a a « a c c a a — K

a e 0. a a » 4* M ** u 3 —• £ » • e V m < a — >. w a 3 B s X -■ a 0

0 ^ a a ■ a Q. 0 -

B i? m a «^ C 0..Q

e

w *< " B ä « * a a A « e *i - a e a 0 s u u a b u a

a B tw 4 »"• r. • * P^ • ■ M 0 Q «■ > ' j« 0 -»

8 II e 0

w 3

s 0 ^g III 1

m *" a. a »« a a «• Arf ta - Ota m

1 1

111 iN 1 to

£ 5toB- B a. a a mt a a ■ £ to a a d 4 a a »a • 0 • x 0

9 i« a g|s . to* c ^ M

■ ^0 0 3 c ^ | — « • "3 a « -o 8

1- — a i ■4 ^ IW w

«n g rt a a c 0 - a 5 <* e

M IN m Q 0 a w — *i '0 a *> — — a

1 a ». i *. M w M M 0 *< c - 1

?- a z SS.8>

to u

I

o o e

1

in

e a

a to o

a a a a o —

'^ • IS: r, S' e

*i a

^2 5 a a e a

0. s a - 0 a

Ä 3

\

-3 1

£g — a

80a -. c —

a I

0 a

s; c a >• M a B M

— a MM Q »

e

2

11 a »• a s a

3-

a M a e

2 a >• O to e a

2? a 3

si

M e — a

5! _ 0

£3 e — a « ■ a e * 0 to a

a

a e 22 to S U —

1

«8 to >

m 3 a «1. 3 a - »• a ** to« 1:1 •M to

Is 5 82

n MSB

SS3

d •

a a

a >. 0

PI S»«l a — >• 0 k. 3 *i a u 0«

= M • a M

a — » a «i

to&S a — w M a >• aas »■oa II

a — e

||l to a a a to a M Be»»

*< — a 8 9 ■ _ * m a *> • a u e ■ p« a — a 3 w ä a b to M to £3 — *• a » •

^ a > a a to «a M 11 M >«

• &• e s «• 0 ■ 0 «•I w a a a a

San

-E-i

fflafflSMfflfiBfi^^^

HBlWffWSWWCTWWWrafWWns^^ y* irorw rn ^ in«™

a 2 M J a a l-l D u

8 II

o

I8

> e 0

— • <u ■ a w

— o «>■ e e —

8c O f

■ S

E.2 «i

5 • 0 » « C « W W

a e

e ■ x a a

"5 5 ■ « Q a • ■ >. w — «< • « e • • • M ■

~ Si o - a u

a a ■ B" * S « a. v ■ — 3 «j »00

a •

N 0 a a «

£ ■ 3 <M 2

« a ■ u q

2 4j •

a * • »es

u — JJ

1 • O

n • -o u o

— ft

u a. a m Ja a a a

sax« O-j a "O

T5

3 C

C 0

u

-H 2 w m

■ 2 U

w u en en < a <

— 3

S.S * cr • -< -• «^ « o

3 0 >.

' 8 a 0 m

woo 0 «

a a o e e - o o *«

>» *i m • *• . "" B -• in n M v >i A e — « — a —

O *i c *i

• M a *J e ir e a

e

» to 0

1

2 -

• e «i

§ «

a • s - o • ? g •« • J 2 0 <to

> • « a

— "9 > » " 0 • u M • e ><

85

M a — A

s s B-a

a

"§: a a

■ to

8. V

a « £ —

0 £

8- — a Ai a *< c o

"i ■« C tl • ■ tf S. •o ■ a ^

e a e» £ s «•i i ^ a u a i a to « 2

m «4 a a M to

w* JJ V II a « e 1 > M > — ii a

a 1 M >* £

a £ "l Cl

• a h. to 3 M » a • • 0 a — o > to II (0

• i

c

"■ to II

o M *d ■ s «1

■0 M £

«M a a a — 1

~l u II 0 a • e ■ > > — II >• 5 l." *# M A*

o "I *> a s * «4 • ■ — 0 3 u M a « 0 u a — 0 i ' to a a Ik M m QI 0

a to e

Jt "g ^ n a

«i £ >• ^ a ■ a —

*i

•^ A) IS «4 • e W4 > «4 — 0 £

2 8..k ■W M a

a "1 Mi ■ a •gg c *- • 0 3 o> e K a " 0 a S2 u

- 0> . £

e -« «a • er > -r *rf

2 Sito a

a rub • a a • K a v a a —wo (0 lb Ql IN

> 21

to ■ to 01 >4 0 « 11

U B tl « J3 -

S ii

~! II Ii

■ a X ■ 3

•8

&i g. •4 to a — a e< I a

i i •

09 I J

3 1 . S u c

13 2 I

a. a

to ti a

•3 ! A o to «4

52

- o

"SI

22 X a

s >.

1 0

82 I« a a

2&

2 ?

7 <

II n

f

« 0<

«13

i 3

» e

5

E-8

g

MyasMwaaBamaMMMCii»^^

PWU^WWJyJWW'.^'JWf'J^Jt'/wv, mrarara rj'.rjT v. v. s^ mrm* \ K JV. "* rjrv( PI* r^ r^ p^ rv^ rw i-v« r

en a z M J -J Q H

Ü

> g J

^ 2 2 c 3 ^" C ?

—( u —I 2 £ 2 O U z

M

6- —4 < a M e- »I z a u J% s:

U5 cn u en en < Q a < N <

e

•» « o ■ — 55 3 £

£ 3

e « «

i"

"3 V

,55 »

e s Sag

S5 s ■ • • - c i

11 %

U • !

H

s « • g g § II Cl s

■c « fl

H •

8^

» —

• •

£3

e >• a u <g M a. w

si 5 8 C O CO O

S 0 o o

«• «I *< Ä - «

,555

X 0 0

Ä 0? i «-- II £ • •

-i-gi

•»SU ic -"a

•51 s s-HI 5So-S -JÄ5S 2' = -- o e 0 • —

's si c » 0<

ä Ü « « c » c • • 8 ■ » » _ - - • ö

>. a • a • — • _ •

3"* ■ o o- _ g » 8.

2S >g 5S§. §1

a — M <J

£2

Si

X = a «x

o ** U 0

u u

81 5 s

<

in

j s x = x J J H J «

uu M U M U o «a o « y a <n

3

e *»

IS Q. J

w

• £; P si

5^.

a «

o ^ >"

J X

25 -

m x j j x « X X J ax«

£

a

£

51

ul »««

u « •

ill

c

■ 3

it 8*

Is3

as M

V •4 a

01

5

?• t a

5-3 -

37. £

-E-^-

mmmmmmmmtmms&

'^WVUWflüfllUV. IflW l^ \.^^v"uviv\,,wuvvvivL^mwjv"XT w v, WÄnw^Ai1 TWTKrnCTWTKTXmCTK^Ti."! KTmnHHiinMmrn w rra,-(«:- w i a ™ M n w -i u ^ »;

CO U Z M J

H 3 U

'S g 3 P C u

•H X iJ C u 0 z o M

E- —( g u e-i

1 z a u < z E-i w

w Cd cn cn < Q ce < N £

2 fl

9 i s

5?

12 o< m

■it

u e 4J

a e

II ** 0 e u a a <u « 0

s.» a

li a w

e jj 0 « 9 A

1 = « s |8

:i ■

5 •

I 5 3

w a

a • • « 8 5 « li tu ** — ■ M

S.ä

• ■

f -1

■ e • o u 0

— • • —

-8 m

Q

e 6-2

« e

.11

• «i 0

• W «4

l^8

III 0?

> u r J • •)

In zu • 'J

e u • — w a e ■ ■

5I2 -|" o • • 9 Ji k. • ^

••« a

m

0

a o

e

9

■ ■ 58

Öi

• ■ n 1 ?. 8

0 2 o «

1

« o u S

w •-

— 9 9 .9

a in

0

i * e —

e g a •»

t8 J sr I

0-0 " Ä *i 0 <"»

■ a -1

5. m e

9

£1

m

0

e

O

0 u

S1

I a

a

s ü 1

■ ■ 2

"öS

o«

2 S^ a

A — 9 . 3

« ■

SS m 8

9 ^ w 9 9

1" 211 9 — 0 — 9 e 9 9 u £ - «I u

a » -o

9

5

:2 « e >. 9

•» 9 i I 5

1 w

0

I

8 S

S'o

2o

9 "

2o

9

e S

MI 9 a • — 0 4.

0 o -« e >

9 9

o5 ? 8a1 u «1 3 JJ Arf 0 0 9b O U 01

9

a

9 ^ 9 .3 o 5 - 3

S.

0-

8 S^ •« o- 0> ti V u 0 w a a <M ■

•58 5 W 9 v a e a

0 "5 «

o " - a 3 S

1 » w 9 «1 9 > — .« 9 g a w 4 k. —

9 M 9 "93

•u «1 3 00

9 i i

itz

3

a 1 .-ü 39—». 0-g

9 >. e 0 «• - »

3 Cl 9

8f £ a

« 0

3 I

"E-tO-

WM^fi^^

r*r71F^77rP777J*71^w7T*7Try7r*yr^^^:^**^f7''.w v"-* v-s ,v.v^-w.v.-*.*,»,->-^->-^ -j^s ^^ ^.^ Vü try MM jr~u nwan mi« « r- m*\ m^- mj^m^ w^ trwirw ,

Zt •9 •*

0 n I, ■M a

8i

01 td Z M

w Q

3

0) a c

•w u c 0 u

g s en en u en w <

OS

« 0 ■ «

8 i s u

l

5

co

2

2

«33

e

I 9

I w 0

1 3

1

a 3 «r a

a

1 I 2 2

•* e

o - *> 0 e — a ■ w 3 o a ** a a w w " a a a.

2

I a

O

0

0

8

e

It M C.

0

1 a a

e «• a a.

• 0 0 *i ^

Su x 3 e

3

a >

ja a e ■ 8.

a

« 5

2 I

o a. 3 >• a

< a

u a is ■ « a -l A

I 8. . ■ ei • e — — a M a a ■ u u| O a o a

• a- 5 -

o a M w u a a

0 « ** «4

3

S 3 M

= 3

a a > > a a

a

s — w " a a « a a

"fiSlf

fefflm)^^^

^^^WW^^^W^TOWWWWffli^WWW^W^IWWfWWWWWWWTffff K^V.TW^TVTV ri^*n•i.'^l*.\yv7'^y'*Fvm'liF^^^*v~*^wy^ (LTH^K.'.IL^JIKTUT

I '

APPENDIX F

SITE HAZARD ASSESSMENT RATING FORMS

fe^^.^.^^

W^^WnW^^^W^^^^W^^^^^^W^P^^^^WW^P^^^^KW?^WKrwjWV„n1K.V,uTR'V.."^"W/WW IWWTW "W.rj^ "J* '> "wV "J< ^Ji 'l*' WJ* "iTVXl^ ;«

APPENDIX F

INDEX FOR HAZARD ASSESSMENT

METHODOLOGY FORMS

?■■

i PS

Name of Site

Fuel Leak

Fuel Leak in POL Area

Page

F-1

F-3

*■ v*

:

^mmtätimte^^^

Page I of c

Location: terth^eät of building B i/avc or operation: IJIC,

uWüer/Cperötor: Sir Force Plsnt 36 Corwsr.tä/Ceäcription: Broken line entering buildirg U

Site Rcted by: E.H.S.; H.D.H.

I. RECEPTORS

Rating Factor

ft. Population within 1,803 feet of sits B. Distance to nearest well C. Larid -se/zoning within 1 mile radius D. Distance to installation boundary E. Critical environments within 1 mile radius of site F. Wöter quality of nearest surface water body

Ground water use of uppermost aquifer Population served by surface water supply within 3 miles downstrsaw of site Population served by ground-water supply within 3 üiiles of site

Factor Multi- . Factor Maximua Rating plier Score Possible (0-3) Score

3 4 12 12 3 19 39 39 3 3 3 9 3 6 18 18 0 10 0 39 1 6 6 18 9 , g 0 27 0 6 0 18

18 13

Subtotals

Receptors subscore (100 x factor score subtotal/aaxiHUH score subtotal)

93 189

52

II. WSSTE MRACTERISTIC3

5. Select the factor score based on the estiniated quantity, the degree of hazard, and the confidence level of the inforraation.

1. w'aste quantity ( small, nediura, or large ) S = small 2. Confidence level ( confirwed or suspected ) C = confirmed 3. Hazard rating ( low, Medium, or high ) M = medium

Factor Subscore fi (from 29 to 109 based on factor score matrix) 59

S. Spply pefgiste'ice factor Factor Subscore fi x Persistence Factor = Subscore B

9. A0

C. Cpply physical state multiplier Subsco'-e B * Physical State Multiplier = Waste Characteristics Subscore

40 I, 40

F-l

LpwaflflowB^^

Ihc^wwy^wwwvyvvv^tv^nufiuiitviiy^nur nTTOTOCTnaaKracTgrTTarFgrenaoaoaEBPBai w,^iW.,ISf.rriR--^r-

Natiie of Site: Fuel Leak Paje 2 of 2

III. PfimJAYS fl. If thers is cviderKe of migration of hazardous contaainants, assign maxiriiura factor subscore of IM points for

direct evidence or 35 points for indirect evidence. If direct evidence exists then proceed to C. If no evidence or indirect evidence exists, proceed to 8.

Subscore 9 M

B. "ats the Migration potential for 3 potential pathways; surface water migration, flooding, and ground-water migration. Select the highest rating and proceed to C.

Rating Fector

1. Surface Water Migration Distance tc nearest surface water Net precipitation Surface erosion Surface permeability Rainfall intensity

Subtotals

2. Flooding

Subscore UM x factor score/3)

Factor Multi- Factor MaximiM Rating plier Score Possible (8-3) Score

3 8 24 24 2 & 12 18 a 8 8 24 i 6 & 18 2 8 16 24

SB 188 » '

laxinua score subtotal) 54

8 1 8 3

3. Ground-water migration Depth to ground water Net precipitation Soil perweability Subsurface flows Direct access to gnound water

Subtotals

Subscore (1

3 8 24 24 2 6 12 16 2 8 16 24 1 8 8 24 3 8 24 24

84 114

um score subtotal) 74

C. Highest pathway subscore. Enter the highest subscore value fro« fl, B-l, B-2 or B-3 above.

Pathways Subscore 74

IV. WASTE MflNflGEHENT PRflCTICES fl. Average the three subscores for receptors, waste characteristics, and pathways.

Receptors 52 Moste Characteristics 48 Pathways 74 Total 165 divided by 3 =

E. Ppplv factor for waste containment from waste management practices. Gross total score x waste tuanagement practices factor = final score

55 Gross total score

55 8.35 \ 52 \ FINAL SCORE

F-2

M^m

i \ni WM w\ ^i wvrwn ■.< i WKIW.'

Page I of £

HfiZflRD SSSESS'^T RATING !CM1DCL05Y FOR«

Mana of site: Fuel Leak in PCL Prea Locatiori; PCL Area Cite of Operation: 1983 "iwer/uperator; flic Force Plant 36 Ccmicierits/Cescription: ftertheast tank diked area

Site Rated by: E.H.Sj H.D.H.

I. RECEPTORS

Rating Factor

P. Population within 1,803 feet of site B. Distance to reareit well C. lira use/zoning within 1 mile radius D. Diätance to insiallation boundary E. Critical environments within 1 mile radius of site F. y«iter quality of nearest surface water body G. Ground water use of uppermost aquifer H. Population served by surface water supply

within 3 miles downstream of site I. Population served by ground-water supply

within 3 miles of site

Factor Sulti- . Factor Maximra Rating plier Score Possible (0-3) Score

3 4 l£ 12 3 10 33 33 3 3 9 9 3 6 13 13 0 13 3 33 1 5 6 13 0 • 3 0 £7 0 6 0 IS

3 6 18 13

Subtotals 93 180

Receptors subscore (103 x factor score subtotal/Mxinuni score subtotal) 52

II. WfiSTE CHflRfiCTERISTICS

8. Select the factor score based on the estimated quantity, the degree of hazard, and the confidence level of the information.

1. Ȋste quantity ( soiall, mediuni, or large ) S = small 2. Confidence level ( confiraed or suspected ) C = confirmed 3. Hazard rating ( low, mediura, or high ) M = raediua

Factor Subscore S (from 20 to 183 based on factor score matrix) 53

5. apply pgrsisterce factor Factor Subscore fl K Persistence Factor = Subscore B

53 0.33

C. Apply physical state multiplier Subscore g x Physical State Multiplier = Waste Characteristics Subscore

A0 1. 40

F-3

to^f^ttj^^

Name of Sits: Fuel Lsak in POL Area Page 2 of 2

S. If there is evidence of uigration of hazardous contaainants, assign aaxinuia factor subscore of IM points for direct svidencs u' 2? points for indirect eviderice. If direct evidence exists then proceed to C. If no evidence or indirect evidence exists, proceed to B.

Subscore 8

B. Rate the uigration potential for 3 potential pathways: surface water migration, flooding, and ground-water migration. Select the highest rating and proceed to C.

Rating Factor

1. Surface Vater Migration Distance to r»earest surface water Met precipitation Surfare erosion Surface permeability Rainfall intensity

Subtotals Si

Subscore (IN x factor score subtotal/naxiraum score subtotal)

Factor Multi- Factor Maxiauid Rating plier Score Possible (8-3)

8 24

Score

3 24 2 6 12 ia 0 a 0 24 1 6 6 ia e 8 16 24

2. Flooding

Subscore (108 x factor score/3)

1 0

54

3

i

3. Ground-water migration Depth to ground water Met precipitation Soil permeability Subsurface flows Direct access to ground water

Subtotals

3 a 24 24 2 6 12 IB 2 a 16 24 0 a 0 24 0 a 0 24

52 114

un score subtotal) 46

C. Highest pathway subscore. Enter the highest subscore value froai fl, B-l, B-2 or B-3 above.

Pathways Subscore 54

IV, WaSTE MflNflGEMENT PRACTICES fl. Sverage the three subscores for receptors, waste characteristics, and pathways.

Receptors 52 Waste Characteristics 40 Pathways 54 Total 145 divided by 3 = 48 Gross total score

B. Apply factor for waste containment fron waste Hanagement practices. Gros? total score x waste marageiiient practices factor = final score

48 0.95

F-4

\ 46 \ FINAL SCORE

vm M®®S^^

APPENDIX G GLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS

Iflvm^WOmM^^

APPENDIX G GLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS

AF: Air Force.

AFESC: Air Force Engineering and Services Center.

AFFF: Aqueous Film Forming Foam, a fire extinguishing agent.

AFPRO: Air Force Plant Representative Office

AFR: Air Force Regulation.

AFRCE: Air Force Regional Civil Engineer.

AFSC: Air Force Systems Command.

Ag: Chemical symbol for silver.

Al: Chemical symbol for aluminum.

ALLUVIUM: Materials eroded, transported and deposited by streams. ^

AQUIFER: A geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a forma- tion that is capable of yielding water to a well or spring.

ARTESIAN: Ground water contained under hydrostatic pressure.

ASD: Aeronautical Systems Division

Ba: Chemical symbol for barium.

BIOACCUMULATE: Tendency of elements or compounds to accumulate or build up in the tissues of living organisms when they are exposed to these elements in their environments, e.g., heavy metals.

Cd: Chemical symbol for cadmium.

CERCLA: • Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Lia- bility Act.

CIRCA: About; used to indicate an approximate date.

CLOSURE: The completion of a set of rigidly defined functions for a hazardous waste facility no longer in operation.

CN: Chemical symbol for cyanide,

COBBLE: A specific grain size classification of geologic sediments from 2.5 to 10 inches in diameter.

G-1

COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand, a measure of the amount of oxygen required to oxidize organic and oxidizable inorganic compounds in water.

COE: Corps of Engineers.

CONFINED AQUIFER: An aquifer bounded above and below by impermeable strata or by geologic units of distinctly lower permeability than that of the aquifer itself.

CONFINING UNIT: A poorly permeable layer which restricts the movement of ground water.

CONTAMINATION: The degradation of natural water quality to the extent that its usefulness is impaired; there is no implication of any specific limits since the degree of permissible contamination depends upon the intended end use or uses of the water.

Cr: Chemical symbol for chromium. , ,

Cu: Chemical symbol for copper.

DIP: The angle at which a stratum is inclined from the horizontal.

DISPOSAL FACILITY: A facility or part of a facility at which hazardous waste is intentionally placed into or on land or water, and at which waste will remain after closure.

DOD: Department of Defense.

DOWNGRADIENT: In the direction of decreasing hydraulic static head; the direction in yhich ground water flows.

DUMP: An uncovered land disposal site where solid and/or liquid wastes are deposited with little or no regard for pollution control or aesthe- tics; dumps are susceptible to open burning and are exposed to the elements, disease vectors and scavengers.

EFFLUENT: A liquid waste discharge from a manufacturing or treatment process, in its natural state, or partially or completely treated, that discharges into the environment.

EP: Extraction Procedure, the EPA's standard laboratory procedure for leachate generation.

EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

EROSION: The wearing away of land surface by wind, water, or chemical processes.

FACILITY: Any land and appurtenances thereon and' thereto used for the treatment, storage and/or disposal of hazardous wastes.

Fe: Chemical symbol for iron.

'G^2-

Kaa&aiMia^^

FLOOD PLAIN: The lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal areas of the mainland and off-shore islands, including, at .a minimum, areas subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year.

FLOW PATH: The direction or movement of ground water as governed prin- cipally by the hydraulic gradient.

FPTA: Fire Protection Training Area.

GC/MS: Gas chroma tograph^nass spectrophotoneter, a laboratory procedure for identifying unknown compounds.

GE: General Electric Company

GLACIAL TILL: Unsorted and unstratified drift consisting of clay, sand, gravel and boulders which is deposited by or underneath a glacier.

GRAVEL: A general grain size classification of geologic sediments from 0.08 to greater than 10 inches in diameter.

GROUND WATER; Water beneath the land surface in the saturated zone that is under atmospheric or artesian pressure.

GROUND WATER RESERVOIR: The earth materials and the intervening open spaces that contain ground water.

HARM: Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology.

HAZARDOUS WASTE: As defined in RCRA, a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may cause or significantly con- tribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irrever- sible, or i—ncapacitating reversible illness; or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.

HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION: waste.

Ihe act or process of producing a hazardous

HEAVY METALS: Metallic elements, including the transition series, which include many elements required for plant and animal nutrition in trace concentrations but which become toxic at higher concentrations.

Hg: Chemical symbol for mercury.

HWMF: Hazardous Waste Management Facility.

INCOMPATIBLE WASTE: A waste unsuitable for commingling with another waste or material because the commingling might result in generation of extreme heat or pressure, explosion or violent reaction, fire, formation of substances which are shock sensitive, friction sensitive, or other- wise have the potential for reacting violently, formation of toxic

G-3

kma^MMota^^ mmmsmmsm

T^^^WTT^^J1 "j""J«"^"." v~j'~j':'-mj' v v-J* v-^ vv v■>"jfwj~'Jr'j~'j' . W* IM(n*fTÄn*r\* ru» Tj»ri^ rui rj^ ran rut -u» rw» nur

dusts, mists, fumes, and gases, volatilization of ignitable or toxic chemicals due to heat generation in such a manner that the likelihood of contamination of ground water or escape of the substance into the envi- ronment is increased, any other reaction which might result in not meeting the air, human health, and environmental standards.

INFILTRATION: The movement of water through the soil surface into the ground.

IRP: Installation Restoration Program.

LEACHATE: A solution resulting from the separation or dissolving of soluble or particulate constituents from solid waste or other man-placed medium by percolation of water.

LEACHING: The process by which soluble materials in the soil, such as nutrients, pesticide chemicals or contaminants, are washed into a lower layer of soil or are dissolved and carried away»by water.

LENTICULAR: A bed or rock stratum or body that is lens-shaped.

LINER: A continous layer of natural or man-made materials beneath or on the sides of a surface impoundment, landfill, or landfill cell which restricts the downward or lateral escape of hazardous waste, hazardous waste constituents or leachate.

MEK: Methyl Ethyl Ketone.

METHYL CHLOROFORM: 1,1,1, Trichloroethane.

MGD: Million Gallons per Day. '

MILLI: Prefix representing 1/1000, m

MICRO: Prefix representing 1/1,000,000, u.

Mn: Chemical symbol for manganese.

MONITORING WELL: obtain samples.

A well used to measure ground-water levels and to

MORAINE: An accumulation of glacial drift deposited cheifly by direct glacial action and possessing initial constructional form independent of the floor beneath it.

MSD:

MSL:

NOT:

NET PRECIPITATION: evaporation.

Metropolitan Sewer District.

Mean Sea Level.

Non-destructive Testing.

The amount of annual precipitation minus annual

G-4

aM&mMSM^^

'WWPPWWWWMWWWfflWWWWWffWWJWW^,IJ^

NGVD: National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929.

Ni: Chemical symbol for nickel.

NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

OEHL: Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory.

ORGANIC: Being, containing or relating to carbon compounds, especially in which hydrogen is attached to carbon.

OSG: Symbols for oil and grease.

Pb: Chemical symbol for lead.

PERCHED WATER TABLE: The top of a zone of saturation that bottoms on an impermeable horizon above the level of the general water table in an area.

PERCOLATION: Movement of moisture by gravity or hydrostatic pressure through interstices of unsaturated rock or soil.

PERENNIAL: A stream which flows continuously.

PERMEABILITY: The capacity of a porous rock, soil or sediment for transmitting a fluid without damage to the structure of the medium.

pH; Negative logarithm of hydrogen ion concentration.

PL: Public Law.

POLLUTANT: Any introduced' gas, liquid or solid that makes a resource unfit for a specific purpose.

POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE: The imaginery surface to which water in an artesian aquifer would rise in tightly screened wells penetrating it.

PPB: Parts per billion by weight.

PPM: Parts per million by weight.

PRECIPITATION: Rainfall.

QUATERNARY MATERIALS: The second period of the Cenozoic geologic era, following the Tertiary, and including the last 2-3 million years.

RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

RECHARGE AREA: A surface area in which surface water or precipitation percolates through the unsaturated zone and eventually reaches the zone of saturation. Recharge areas may be natural or manmade.

RECHARGE: The addition of water to the ground-water system by natural or artificial processes.

G-5

Ito^M^^^

RIPARIAN: Living or located on a riverbank.

SALINE: Water having a dissolved solids content greater than 1,000 milligrams per liter. ■»«««

SANITARY LANDFILL: A land disposal site using an engineered method of

hiz«ds?9 WaSteS ^ ^^ ^ a ^ that ,nininii2es environmantal

SATURATED ZONE: That part of the earth's crust in which all voids are filled with water.

SCS: U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service.

SLUSH OIL: An oil used to flush fuel from aircraft engines and left in engines during shipment.

SOLID WASTE: Any garbage, refuse, or sludge from a waste treatment P^' water *uEPly treatment, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or con-

or^rfr"8/**"1*1 resultin9 fr°m industrial, commercial, mining, or agricultural operations and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materials in domestic sewage, solid or dis- solved materials in irrigation return flows; industrial discharges which are point source subject to permits under Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (86 USC 880); or source, special

"954 "a ÜS^ ^K011'01' ,naterial ^ defined h* the Atomic En«gy Act of

SPILL: Any unplanned release or discharge of a hazardous waste onto or into the air, land, or water.

STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE: Containment, either on a temporary basis or for a longer period, in such a manner as not to constitute disposal of such hazardous waste.

STP: Sewage Treatment Plant.

TCE: Trichloroethylene.

IDS: Total Dissolved Solid, a water quality parameter.

TOC: Total Organic Carbon.

TOXICITY: The ability of a material to produce injury or disease upon exposure, Ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation by a living organism.

TRANSMISSIVITY: The rate at which water is transmitted through a unit width of aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient.

• TSD: Treatment, storage or disposal.

^°IfT: In.the direction of increasing hydraulic static head; the direction opposite to the prevailing flow of ground-water.

-G-6-

BgWKffiKMM^^

P^Ai'^WWl^vyw^WiVWin^n!*vw^*v.^*v;^ mi nji HJI Rji mmi »vi ^r\ »n »n HJT. ^JA »TA «J-I «^ i». *

USAF: United States Air Force.

US^S: United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

USGS: United States Geological Survey.

e f,^ of a body of unconfined ground water at which the WATER TABLE: Surface of a ooay ui. « prSurf is equal to that of the atmosphere.

Zn: Chemical symbol for zinc.

55

G-7

™tM^»mix*x*MM^XM^^^XM<&

wV&?!%9&&IVtt&7X&TJTtt^?V&TJ&7rjf-J,~-wf-*A*A" • WWW V-J^y*'.1- W^P3nsTjr»r»yTVTy^ jmuTyryvirf ^ v* .^ .-•»

APPENDIX H

REFERENCES

^M^Mtö^^^

^RffWWWWTS^TTTTTTP.-v-jvw-jvi1,""f VVVi'"'"'."■.T'».'vv.'r"'T*-.•»:v--•,- ■• •'^.Tft'V'jTrirrvT'j WTJWVITJ wvjnririi.'w « J

APPENDIX I

iroEx or a^css TO POTE»^ coHT«.mnoH sms AT AIR FORCE PLANT 36

tt^mfflMfr^^

"^WTWJTBCWWVW trw.'vuvwinii ,**"»«»mi»ji

APPENDIX H REFERENCES

Bernhagen, R. J. and Schaefer, E. J., 1947. Ground-Water Conditions in Butler and Hamilton Counties, Ohio, 1946. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Bulletin 8. Columbus, Ohio.

Bier, J. A., 1967. Landforms of Ohio. Ohio Division of Geological Survey. Columbus, Ohio.

Bloyd, R. M. Jr., 1974. Summary Appraisals of the Nation's Grouad-Water Resources - Ohio Region. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 813-A. Washington, D.C.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1974. Flood Hazard Boundary Map, Village of Evendale, Ohio. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, D.C.

Klaer, F. H. Jr., and Thompson D. G., 1948. Ground-Water Resources of the Cincinnati Area, Butler and Hamilton Counties, Ohio. U.S. Geologi- cal Survey Water-supply Paper 999. Washington, D.C.

Lerch, N. K., Hale, W. F. and Lemaster, D. D., 1982. Soil Survey of Hamilton County, Ohio. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Glendale, Ohio.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1963. Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States, Technical Paper No. 40. National Climatic Data Center. Asheville, North Carolina.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1983. Climatic Atlas of the United States. National Climatic Data Center. Asheville, North Carolina. t

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1984. Local Climato- logical Data, Annual Summary With Comparative Data, 1983, Cincinnati, Ohio, Greater Cincinnati Airport. National Climatic Data Center. Asheville, North Carolina.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1976. Southwest Ohio Water Plan. Division of Water, Water Planning. Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments, 1977. Regional Water Quality Management Plan. Cincinnati, Ohio.

Ohio Water Commission Hearing, 1961. Over-Use of Underground Water Supplies in the Upper Mill Creek Valley. Evendale, Ohio, March 24, 1961.

H-1

WS -> T-> T-jr-> ,Vf->^jr">- '>-'> -ji rji rj( rur-^t -> wj< -j« Tyr KS FJ TO^F^r^Hionar ?IFT V ■ . . ■ • rj*"^ irr jrr.xnv^wr.w^iiHw?' %^ - ^ • nu mv^w^ux u ■< i.«

Osborne, R. H., 1974. Bedrock Geology of the Cincinnati East Quad- rangle, Hamilton County, Ohio. Ohio Division of Geological Survey, Report of Investigations No. 94. Columbus, Ohio.

Schmidt, J. J., 1959. Ohio Water Plan Inventory, Mill Creek Basin and Adjacent Ohio River Tributaries, Underground Water Resources. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water. Columbus, Ohio.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1969. Flood Prone Area map for Cincinnati East, Ohio Quadrangle. Water Resources Division. Columbus, Otr'v

U.S. Geological Survey, 1984. Annual Water Data, 1983. Ohio Water Resources Division, Columbus, Chio.

H-2

«amajsaaiffl^^

APPENDIX I

INDEX OF REFERENCES TO POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SITES

AT AIR FORCE PLANT 36

■

ir^W^.K'J<i'?J.fA'TVJirJVWWVVwVJVl.> '.v '.^u^ -> rCTPrwnQnanarKyTqnqrcr^jn-ji "> rj> rw r> n^r^r^rvurwM^firv. vu v^. ^. -x—-^

APPENDIX I

INDEX OF REFERENCES TO POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SITES

AT AIR FORCE PLANT 36

Site Page No.

underground Fuel Leak Northwest

of Building B

4, 5, 6, 8, 4-7, 4-17, 4-19, 5-1,

5-2, 6-2, 6-3, F-1, F-2

Fuel Spill at South Fuel Farm 5, 6, 7, 8, 4-12, 4-17, 4-19,

5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 6-2, 6-3, F-3, F-4

a^aaami^